Sitting of 31 October 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    School Meals
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education if she is now in a position to say how many school canteens have actually been opened since 1st April, 1946.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen
    Wilkinson):There was a net increase of 970 in the number of school canteens between February and June, 1946. A further return is now coming in but the results will not be available until December.
    Mr. Morley:Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are finding considerable difficulty in getting huts for use as dining rooms, and would she state what steps are being taken to expedite this matter?
    Miss Wilkinson:I am surprised to hear that and would like to have particulars because it is not the huts which have been the difficulty. The difficulty has been over a certain amount of the equipment. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars I will look into them.
    Mr. Oliver Poole:Can the right hon. Lady say how many canteens have been opened in rural schools?
    Miss Wilkinson:Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education how many education authorities have appointed assistants, other than teachers, to help in the supervision of children during school meals and the midday interval, as suggested by Circular 97, and the total number of such assistants.
    Miss Wilkinson:At the beginning of July, 1946, 61 local education authorities were employing assistants, other than teachers, to supervise children at school meals. The number of assistants employed was 3,907.
    Mr. Morley:Seeing that only 61 out of 147 local authorities are carrying out the recommendations of the circular, may I ask what steps my right hon. Friend is taking to see that recommendations of this sort are honoured by local authorities?
    Miss Wilkinson:I sent out a circular to get that information in July and the rest of the authorities replied stating that they had the matter under active consideration. Most of them were preparing to make some appointments then. I am sending out a further circular to get the final figures, but it is not very much use doing that until December.
    Miss Bacon:Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in many schools the difficulty arises not so much in the supervision of the school meal as in the period between the end of the school meal and the beginning of the afternoon session?
    Miss Wilkinson:Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Education if she will provide overalls for teachers who undertake the serving of midday meals in schools.
    Miss Wilkinson:No, Sir; the supervision of pupils at meals by teachers is concerned with social training and should not include the serving of food.
    Mr. Hurd:Is not the Minister aware that it involves a certain amount of serving? Is it not a reasonable request, and would she not make a personal approach on this matter to the President of the Board of Trade, who is obviously himself sympathetic since he tells the whole world that his clothes are threadbare and that he puts his foot through the sheet when he gets into bed?

    Teachers (Council Membership)
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Education if she is aware that a teacher or other person employed by the Committee for Education of an excepted district under the Education Act, 1944, is ineligible for election either as a borough councillor or as a county councillor in that area; and what steps she proposes to take to deal with this anomaly and to ensure that such a person shall be eligible for election to one or other of the two authorities.
    Miss Wilkinson:Teachers in excepted districts are usually appointed by the local council as divisional executive, and so are precluded from being members of the council by Section 59 (I) of the Local Government Act, 1933. They also receive their pay from, and are in the service of, the county council, as local education authority, and the High Court might, therefore, hold that they are ineligible for membership of the county council also. The position of these teachers was reviewed when the Education Act, 1946, was under consideration, and it was decided that to amend the law would have involved departing from the well-established principle that an employee should not be eligible for membership of a local authority which could be regarded as in any sense his employer.

    Condemned Schools
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Education how many schools in England and Wales have been condemned as unfit for use between August, 1945, and the nearest date; and how many of such schools are situated in rural areas.
    Miss Wilkinson:Since 1st August, 1945, 14 schools in England and Wales have been closed wholly or mainly on account of defective premises. Nine of the 14 schools are in rural areas. In addition, nine other schools have been temporarily discontinued owing to defects in their premises, and of these five are in rural areas.
    Mr. Wallace:Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of our rural schools exist in an atmosphere of patronage, cant and humbug, and that the conditions of many are an appalling disgrace to the nation?
    Mr. O. Poole:Is the right hon. Lady also aware that we attach very great importance to these rural schools and disagree entirely with the remarks that have just been made?
    Mr. Alpass:Is it not a fact that a very large number of these schools—much exceeding the number the right hon. Lady has suggested—have been condemned as unfit and have been in a most unsatisfactary condition for many years? Will the right hon. Lady take active steps to see that the authorities put them in a condition which will make them fit for children to attend?
    Miss Wilkinson:All these questions may be very true, but they are not on the Order Paper.

    School-leaving Age (Huts)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education how many huts, for the purpose of raising the school-leaving age, have been asked for by local education authorities; whether the one-fifth of the huts required for this purpose had been erected by 31st August, 1946, in accordance with the programme envisaged in Administrative Memorandum 98; and, if not, how many huts had been erected by that date.
    Miss Wilkinson:The programmes so far received from local education authorities cover 3,804 classrooms and 1,571 practical rooms. No huts had been finally completed by 31st August, 1946. That date, however, has no significance except for programme purposes, none of the huts being required for use by the extra age group until August, 1947. Contracts have already been placed by the Ministry of Works for 1,155 classrooms and 373 practical rooms.
    Mr. R. A. Butler:Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements are so far ahead that we may envisage the date of the raising of the school-leaving age with equanimity and satisfaction?
    Miss Wilkinson:Oh, quite.

    Scientific Apparatus
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that there is a shortage of science apparatus in the schools; and if she will take steps to ensure that the schools have a first claim on apparatus which is being disposed of from Government surplus stocks and so

    759
    avoid their being informed that there is apparatus available but unobtainable without paying high prices to retailers.
    Miss Wilkinson:I am aware of the shortage of scientific apparatus in the schools. Steps have been taken, in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply, to ensure that when apparatus suitable for use in schools becomes available in sufficient quantity, the claims of the schools receive priority.
    Mr. Gibson:Is my right hon. Friend aware that this scientific apparatus is finding its way not into the schools but into retail shops first, and that the schools have to go to these shops and pay extravagant prices for it?
    Miss Wilkinson:I hope my hon. Friend will give me particulars of anything of the kind because that is not my information. We have worked very closely with the Ministry of Supply in this matter. There has been difficulty, however, in getting from the schools indents and requests for the kind of apparatus they can use.

    School Visits
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that curriculum and timetables in secondary schools fall within the province of local education authorities, governing bodies and heads of schools, she will arrange that all decisions relating to school visits and excursions similarly rest with the above authorities, bodies and persons.
    Miss Wilkinson:It is necessary for His Majesty's inspectors to be satisfied that such visits are of educational value and that the arrangements for them are satisfactory. This does not mean, however, that each individual visit has to be separately approved. His Majesty's inspectors may give general approval in advance for visits of agreed types and purposes.
    Mr. Lindsay:So that the answer last week about filling in forms in triplicate, which I discovered has caused consternation in Leeds and Manchester this weekend, is now abrogated, and the principle of freedom of the school is well established?
    Miss Wilkinson:I do not think the hon. Member can put a gloss of his own on
    760
    what I say. If he will look at what I have said, it just does not fit.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher:May we be assured that everything possible will be done to encourage the paying of educational visits?
    Miss Wilkinson:After all, the business of schools is to get on with the job of education. These matters are subject to perfectly friendly discussion between the heads of schools and His Majesty's inspectors, and what one might call extramural visits are helpful to serve the purpose of education. When once permission is given, it is not necessary to fill up a form for every individual visit. As I say, permission may be given for groups or a set of children, but it is done on a basis of sensible people doing a sensible job.
    Mr. Lipson:What is the objection to leaving to the heads of the schools the decision whether these visits are of educational value or not? Cannot you trust them to that extent?
    Miss Wilkinson:They are not the Education Department. As a matter of fact, there is extraordinarily little friction in the way this system is being worked.
    Mr. Rankin:Would it not be possible for the English authority to follow the very enlightened and advanced practice of Scotland in this matter?
    Mr. Edward Evans:Is not the right hon. Lady confusing schooling with education?
    Miss Wilkinson:Not in the least. I say that we are perfectly willing to give permission for suitable extra-mural activities, but I see no reason whatever why those should not be discussed between the headmasters and His Majesty's inspectors.
    Mr. Stephen:Why should the Minister suppose that the inspectors should be more qualified in this respect than the headmasters? Is it not the case in education that headmasters have much more knowledge in that respect than inspectors?

    Development Plans
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Education what steps are being taken to deal with the development plans received from local education authorities.
    Miss Wilkinson:59 local education authorities have submitted complete

    761
    development plans and instalments have been received from 19 more. The plans are under active consideration in my Department.
    Mr. Fletcher:Can the Minister assure us that the Department is adequately staffed to enable her to deal expeditiously with the proposed plans that have been received?
    Miss Wilkinson:I do not think any Department is adequately staffed at the present time. It depends on what the standard of adequacy is in staffing, and mine is rather high. All I can say is that I do not think there will be any undue delay in dealing with the problem.
    Mr. R. A. Butler:Is the Minister satisfied that the remainder of the development plans are coming along to time?
    Miss Wilkinson:We have granted 87 authorities, including the 19 who have submitted instalments, an extension of time—many of them for very good reasons.

  POST OFFICE

    Telephone Service
    Mr. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the number of trunk telephone circuits at present allotted exclusively to Service Departments and the number allotted exclusively to all other Government Departments, together with the number now available for the general public.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke):There are approximately 2,700 telephone circuits over 25 miles in length allocated for use of the three Services, and 700 in use by other Government Departments and the B.B.C. 12,850 circuits over 25 miles in length are available for public service.
    Mr. Erroll:Is it not deplorable that nearly a quarter of the total trunk circuits available are reserved for the use of Government Departments? Apart from the doubtful need for a few security circuits, could not the Government Departments take their turn in the queue at the switchboard just like the public?
    Mr. Burke:We are taking them over from the Government Departments, with their cooperation, as fast as we can make
    762
    use of them. Since the hon. Gentleman put down his Question two months ago, 600 circuits have been added to the public service.
    Captain John Crowderasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why applicants for a telephone are asked for a remittance to cover the rent and cost of installing the telephone many months before the instrument is actually installed.
    Mr. Burke:The normal practice is to despatch the first account after installation of service. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any case he has in mind, I will have inquiry made.
    Captain Crowder:Is the Minister aware that I have a letter here from the North area office asking the applicant for a remittance of 31s. last July, and the telephone has not yet been installed? If, therefore, that practice is being carried on with numerous applicants, the Post Office must have half a million pounds, or three-quarters of a million pounds, in hand without paying interest, so will he look into it?
    Mr. Burke:That is not the normal practice, though there may be reasons why, in certain cases, we have to ask for the money in advance.
    Mr. Glossopasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why telephone accounts are still rendered six months in arrear; and whether he is now able to revert to the prewar practice of rendering accounts quarterly.
    Mr. Burke:Telephone accounts are still rendered at six-monthly intervals because the additional trained staff and office machinery required for quarterly accounts are not yet available. The transition back to quarterly accounts will be spread over a period of six months and I confidently expect that it will be started during the course of next year.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when it is proposed to convert the Enfield telephone exchange from manual to automatic operation.
    Mr. Burke:Conversion of the Enfield exchange to automatic working is dependent on a major extension of the building and it is proposed to start this work in 1948.
    Mr. Davies:While thanking the Minister for his encouraging reply may I ask him whether, when this conversion takes place, in view of the fact that there are five exchanges serving Enfield, of which one at least is a toll exchange, it will bring the toll subscribers on to the Enfield exchange?
    Mr. Burke:I cannot say whether that will be possible, but there is spare accommodation on the Enfield exchange yet, and we will put the automatic exchange into operation as soon as that capacity has been used up.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of residents in the urban district of Enfield who are connected to the Howard, Enfield and Waltham Cross telephone exchanges.
    Mr. Burke:Precise figures are not readily obtainable, but the approximate numbers of residents in the urban district of Enfield connected to the Howard, Enfield, and Waltham Cross telephone exchanges are 300, 3,100 and 8o respectively.

    Postmen (Non-Service Men)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why non-Service disabled men are refused employment as postmen.
    Mr. Burke:In accordance with longstanding Government policy, the Post Office is pledged to allocate 5o per cent. of postmen vacancies to ex-Service men; the remaining vacancies are required to provide outlets for boy messengers and auxiliary (part-time) postmen already in Post Office employment. The arrangements, therefore, do not provide for the direct recruitment of non-Service men, whether able-bodied or disabled.
    Mr. Davies:In view of the long-standing agreement, does not the Minister think it is time that this was revised, as industrially disabled men are excluded from obtaining employment as postmen at the present time?
    Mr. Burke:On the contrary, I think the fact that we have had another war makes the claim of ex-Servicemen, and particularly disabled ex-Servicemen, of whom we employ over II per cent., more important now than it was before.

    Newspapers (Air Mail)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will reduce the present high charges for sending by air mail newspapers to members of His Majesty's Forces serving overseas.
    Mr. Burke:There is no separate air mail postage rate for newspapers for His Majesty's Forces overseas. Newspapers prepaid at letter rates of postage receive the same treatment as letters, namely, if not exceeding one ounce and prepaid 1½d. they are in general conveyed by air as the normal means of transmission, or if over one ounce they are conveyed by air on payment of the special air mail rate of 6d. for one and a half ounces and higher rates for two ounces and above. The introduction of a specially reduced air mail rate for newspapers would necessitate a large increase in the aircraft capacity allocated to mails, and I am advised that any such increase would be impracticable in existing circumstances.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:Is it not a fact that it costs sixpence to send a copy of the "Daily Herald" to a man serving in the Far East, and does not the Assistant Postmaster-General regard that as quite prohibitive?
    Mr. Burke:It also costs sixpence to send a copy of the "Daily Express."
    Major Guy Lloyd:Is it not time the Government gave consideration to the question of reducing charges for air mail postage altogether, both for letters and newspapers, as they are most exorbitant, and poor people cannot afford to pay them?
    Mr. Speaker:This relates to the Forces, and not to air mail postages generally.

    Dismissals, Edinburgh
    Mr. Hoyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that many men of the 1914–18 class are being dismissed from the services of the G.P.O. in Edinburgh; and what action he is taking to stop these dismissals.
    Mr. Burke:I am aware of the position. These men, who were engaged for temporary employment only, are now redundant, following the return of permanent staff from the Forces, and the resumption of recruitment on a permanent basis

    765
    through the normal machinery, and are being discharged in accordance with general arrangements agreed with the staff representatives for the discharge of redundant temporary staff. I do not propose to intervene.
    Mr. Hoy:Could the Minister give an assurance that these men are not to be discharged and preference given to married women?
    Mr. Burke:No, Sir; the arrangements for discharge of persons taken on temporarily have been made in conjunction with the staff. It has nothing to do with married women at all.

    Letter Collection, London
    Mr. Keelingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted in Central London after 6.30 on Friday evening are still not delivered in greater London until Monday morning; and how soon the collections promised for 7.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. will be restored.
    Mr. Burke:Yes, Sir. I hope it will be possible to do so shortly after Christmas.
    Mr. Keeling:May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is still of the grandmotherly opinion, which he held on 6th June, that it is not in the public interest that people should stay up late to write letters?
    Mr. Burke:I am not at all grand-motherly, but I am still of that opinion.
    An Hon. Member:It is a matter of opinion.

    Postal Receipts
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total aggregate receipts in the last completed year from letters and parcels; and what were the receipts from 1d. matter.
    Mr. Burke:The total estimated cash receipts for 1945–46 from letters and parcels were approximately £52½ million and from printed papers about £6½ million.
    Sir W. Smithers:In view of the large receipts from the penny matter—as I understand it is technically called—is it not reasonable to suppose that if the 2½d. stamp is reduced to 2d. the increased traffic will make up for any loss?
    Mr. Burke:That is hypothetical. I do not think so.
    Sir W. Smithers:Try it.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Unemployment Benefit Rights
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of National Insurance if he can yet make a statement whether Section 62 of the National Insurance Act can be brought into operation in advance of the appointed day; and whether he will give a date.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths):Yes, Sir; the Government intend to make provision as soon as possible on the lines of Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, for extending the right to benefit under the present unemployment insurance scheme. The details of the necessary arrangements are now receiving my close attention, but I cannot yet give the date from which they will operate.
    Mrs. Braddock:In view of the fact that acute hardship is put on men who exhaust their stamp benefit and are referred to the Assistance Board, where a means test takes place, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the whole of the administration of his Department will be speeded up, in order that at the earliest possible moment this Section of the Act can be applied?
    Mr. Griffiths:Yes, I am doing my very best to bring it into operation as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Castle:Has my right hon. Friend appointed the National Advisory Council, to whom he promised that these regulations would be submitted before being submitted to this House?
    Mr. Griffiths:The National Advisory Council's function will be to advise me on the operation of the National Insurance Scheme. If my hon. Friend studies the reply, she will see that this refers to extending Section 62 of the Act to existing unemployment insurance.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman:In view of the fact that Section 62 cannot be operated without regulations, which are not yet in existence, and in view of the fact that all the controversial questions under the Section are to be dealt with by regulations, can my right hon. Friend say when

    767
    the House will have an opportunity of knowing what the regulations are to contain?
    Mr. Griffiths:I said that the preparation of the regulations is receiving my close attention. I cannot give a date; but it will be as soon as possible.

    Old Age Pensioners (Workers)
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of National Insurance how many persons, male and female, who are receiving old age pensions are still following gainful employment.
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance how many old age pensioners whose pensions have been converted into retirement pensions are continuing in employment; and how many of such numbers suffer reduction in the basic rate of pension by virtue of the amount of their earnings.
    Mr. J. Griffiths:It is not possible to say how many pensioners who are in receipt of increased pensions are continuing in employment, as the retirement condition only applies to contributory pensioners who are between the ages of 65 and 70, for men, and 60 to 65, for women. It is estimated that the number of contributory pensioners who have not received increased pensions because they do not satisfy the retirement condition, is about 600,000. The number of retired pensioners who are not receiving the full increase because they still have some earnings in excess of £I a week necessarily varies from week to week; in the third week of October it was approximately 4,500.

    Pensioners (Figures)
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance the total number of old age pensioners whose pensions have been converted into retirement pensions; how many will now receive an increased weekly payment over and above the previous basic pension plus supplementary; what is the average weekly amount of such increase; and how many will receive no increase.
    Mr. J. Griffiths:I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) on 24th October, of which I am sending him a copy. As
    768
    regards the third part of the Question, I am unable to say what is the average weekly rate of increase.
    Mr. Prescott:Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give the information I asked of him?
    Mr. Griffiths:The information I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry last week contained a fairly clear picture of how the new increases have worked out. If the hon. Member has any consequential questions to put, I will be glad to reply to them.
    Mr. Prescott:My supplementary question was directed to the third part; when will the Minister be in a position to give the information for which I asked in the third part?
    Mr. Griffiths:I am afraid it will require a good deal of investigation. I think the figures I gave last week present a very clear picture. Unless the hon. Member presses me, I do not think I would be justified in working out the figures precisely as he wants them, and the expense of getting out the figures would be large.

    Pension Order Books
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that in Lancashire many old age pensioners have been unable to draw any pension since the new scale was introduced, in view of the fact that new pension books were not, and are not, available at post offices; and what steps are being taken to remedy this situation.
    Mr. J. Griffiths:I am aware that a number of pensioners for whom pension order books at the new rate have not been issued by my Department claim to be qualified for the increase, but no pensioner should be without a pension order book enabling him to draw pension at the old rate while his claim to the new rate is being investigated. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of any pensioner who is without a pension order book I will make immediate inquiries and communicate with him.
    Mr. Prescott:Is the Minister aware that I have already sent particulars of two cases, and that there are many others in Lancashire? Does he appreciate that this is a serious matter, and would he give it his personal attention?
    Mr. Griffiths:I have given it my personal attention. The National Insurance Act received the Royal Assent on 1st August. Between 1st August and 1st October we investigated 4 million claims and awarded 3,500,000 pensions. I think we have done a very good job. I appreciate that anyone that has failed to get a book feels disappointed, and I have taken special measures this week to see that all outstanding cases are dealt with as soon as possible.

    TAXICAB FARES
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his regulations allow a taxicab driver to charge the full fare to each passenger when they share a journey.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede):The amount recorded on the taximeter at the conclusion of a hiring is the total charge which may legally be made by a London taxicab driver. In cases where a taxicab is shared, any apportionment of this charge is a matter for the passengers, and provided the driver receives the amount recorded, he has no right to insist on a separate contribution from each passenger.
    Sir W. Smithers:Will the Home Secretary try to give this answer publicity over the B.B.C., and ask the police so to inform taxi drivers?
    Mr. Ede:I have no control over the B.B.C., but I hope that the publicity given to the hon. Member's Question and my answer will achieve the result he desires.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson:The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a few taxi drivers do exploit the public like this; ought not the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to be placed in the cabs with the other regulations?
    Mr. Ede:I do not think that that would be very effective. If a member of the public upon whom the exploitation is attempted will inform the police, they will take the necessary action.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by the
    770
    Metropolitan Police to prevent unauthorised and exorbitant charges by taxi-cab drivers.
    Mr. Ede:The police have standing instructions to report cab drivers who break the law by demanding more than the fare recorded on the taximeter, but their ability to take action largely depends upon the public giving information of such improper charges and being willing to give evidence. In the first nine months of this year 51 cases have been reported and 42 prosecutions resulted.
    Mr. Keeling:Is not the passenger's simple remedy to tell the driver to drive to the nearest police station?
    Mr. Ede:That is one remedy.

    DISORDERLY HOUSES
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking on the representations made by the Lambeth Borough Council and supported by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee for legislation to facilitate successful prosecutions where premises are used for the purpose of prostitution.
    Mr. Ede:I have taken note of the representations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of legislation on this subject at the present time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton:Is my right hon. Friend aware that conditions in some streets in Brixton are a public scandal, and that the police and the local council are quite unable, under the present law, to clean up this undesirable area, where accommodation is so urgently needed by respectable families?
    Mr. Ede:I do not think there is any prospect of getting the matter dealt with at present.

    CINEMAS (CHILDREN)
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the extent and possible effects of regular attendance at cinemas by young children, with particular reference to children's matinees and cinema clubs.
    Mr. Ede:I am doubtful on present information about the value of such an inquiry, but I am making certain further inquiries and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge:Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that hundreds of thousands of children are subjected each week to propaganda of a most undesirable sort through the films, and that the influence of this on our future citizens must be deleterious?
    Mr. Ede:I hope that hon. Members will keep a sense of proportion in this matter. In my young days the "penny blood" was the source of all juvenile delinquency, and the fact that it was frowned upon considerably increased its circulation.
    Mr. Dumpleton:Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is really widespread genuine concern among teachers, members of local education authorities, juvenile panel magistrates and many others who have anything to do with children, not only at the lack of suitable films, which is admitted by the people concerned, but the unsuitability of the people who manage these clubs to deal with children?
    Mr. Ede:That again is a matter in which I do not think the Government could usefully intervene.

    JUDICIAL HANGINGS
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if records are kept at His Majesty's prisons showing the length of time that passes between an execution by hanging and the moment at which life is certainly extinct; and if he will state the average number of minutes that elapse in such cases.
    Mr. Ede:No such records are kept. I am advised that in judicial executions unconsciousness is instantaneous.
    Mr. Driberg:In view of recent reports which stated that some of the Nuremberg executions—for which my right hon. Friend was not, of course, responsible—took as much as 12 or 14 minutes, is he satisfied that no such period of time can elapse in any execution in this country?
    Mr. Ede:I have, since my hon. Friend put this Question on the Order Paper, seen the result of certain investigations which were carried out in this country a few years ago with regard to what actually happens in these cases. I have seen nothing in the reports of what happened at Nuremberg to make me doubt the accuracy of the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend.

    HOOLIGANISM, CAMDEN TOWN
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the recent closing of a police station and the increase of hooliganism in the Camden Town area; and if he will take steps to ensure that a more adequate and rapid police protection is available. when necessary, for that area.
    Mr. Ede:I am advised by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the vacation of the temporary station for this area in June last has not resulted in any reduction of police supervision for the area and adequate facilities exist for summoning extra police aid speedily if required. I am informed that whilst there is some hooliganism in the area, there is no evidence that it is on the increase.

    ARREST AND TRIAL (INTERVAL)
    Wing-Commander Millingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the period between arrest and trial in criminal cases shall not be more than six weeks.
    Mr. Ede:It would not be practicable to prescribe a maximum period between arrest and trial, because this period must depend, first, on the time taken at the hearing by the examining justices—and this may include adjournments at the request either of the prosecution or of the defence—and, second, upon the date of sitting of the court of assize or quarter sessions to which the accused is committed. Magistrates have power, where committal to the next assizes or quarter sessions would involve undue delay, to commit to another court of assize or quarter sessions in order to expedite the trial, and they also have power to grant bail on committal for trial.
    Wing-Commander Millington:Is the Home Secretary aware of one specific case, where a man is now in jail, waiting for trial on a capital charge, and that four months will elapse between arrest and the trial? Will my right hon. Friend not agree that that is imposing a burden on that man, whether he be guilty or innocent, which the law should not force him to bear?
    Mr. Ede:Not until my hon. and gallant Friend drew my attention to that case less than half an hour ago. In the meantime, I have not been able to investigate it. I am convinced that the power to send a case for trial at another assizes than that for the county concerned is well known to justices, and is generally used when that course is suitable.
    Mr. Hector Hughes:Does my right hon. Friend realise that at present many accused persons are, in effect, subject to two trials, one in a police court and one before a jury, and that during the period of time which elapses between the two, the publicity given to the first necessarily prejudices the case at the second, because—
    Mr. Speaker:The hon. and learned Member is now raising quite another matter from that raised by the Question on the Order Paper.

    PRISONERS OF WAR (AGRICULTURE)
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to allow German prisoners of war, due for repatriation, to remain in this country as agricultural workers on normal rates of pay, where they desire to do so; and to whom such applications should be forwarded in the first instance.
    Mr. Ede:The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir," and the second part therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Byers:In view of the continuous statements from the Lord President of the Council and the President of the Board of Trade about the shocking manpower shortage in this country, is it not time that the Government reconsidered their attitude to people who want to work here and are willing to do so?
    Mr. Ede:We also have to have regard to security considerations.

    SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES)
    Mr. Errollasked the Prime Minister if he, will give an undertaking that workers' representation on national boards and investigating committees of the type being set up as part of the Government's industrial programme will not be confined exclusively to trades union officials.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee):Persons appointed as workers' representatives on investigating committees should normally be appointed after consultation with the appropriate trade union body. The question whether persons so appointed will be officials will depend on the circumstances of each case. As to the boards of socialised industries, members will be appointed on their merits and persons associated with trade unions, as others, will receive every consideration.
    Mr. Erroll:Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the vicious statement of the President of the Board of Trade the other day when he said that workers were unfit to play any part in the control of industry?
    The Prime Minister:I do not think that seems to be correct. Perhaps the hon. Member would put down any specific point to which he wishes to call my attention.
    Mr. Monslow:Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the knowledge and experience of trade union officers in any new administration would be beneficial?
    The Prime Minister:Yes, Sir.

    COURT MARTIAL PROCEDURE
    Mr. Footasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to take early action to standardise and overhaul court martial procedure in all three Services.
    The Prime Minister:As my hon. Friend is aware, a committee is in process of being set up to review the court martial

    775
    systems of the Army and Royal Air Force in the light of the experience gained during the war. This committee will include court martial procedure within its scope. The standardisation of court martial procedure in all three Services would encounter many difficulties owing to the entirely different conditions under which the Services operate. The closest attention will be given to the effects on the naval court martial system of any recommendations by the committee, which is being set up by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air to review the military courts, and in all respects I think it would be best to await the results of the committee's investigations.
    Mr. Marlowe:While there may be a case for the review of the whole system, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Judge Advocate-General discharges a difficult task with complete impartiality; and will he discourage this continued attack upon and abuse of a conscientious and hard worked public official?
    The Prime Minister:That hardly seems to arise out of this Question. I have not heard of the attack.

    CHILD CARE (CURTIS REPORT)
    Mrs. Corbetasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Curtis Report, he is giving consideration to the desirability of the Ministry of Education assuming the responsibility for the care of deprived children.
    The Prime Minister:I can assure my hon. Friend that this Report is receiving close consideration, but it is not possible to make a statement at present.
    Mrs. Corbet:Will the Prime Minister note that there is a large body of opinion both inside and outside the House in favour of this course?
    The Prime Minister:Yes, I will note that.
    Mr. K. Lindsay:Whichever Department is chosen, will the Prime Minister see that the primary consideration is the absorption of these children into the full life of the community, rather than segregating them?
    Mr. Nicholson:Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate legislation at an early date?
    The Prime Minister:I think it is rather early to answer that question. We have not had very much time to consider the whole matter.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Education what steps she is proposing to take as a result of the publication of the Curtis Report.
    Miss Wilkinson:The report of the Curtis Committee is under active consideration by the three Departments concerned.
    Mr. Fletcher:Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very widespread feeling that the Ministry of Education should assume responsibility for all types of children?
    Mr. Wilson Harris:Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is very strong feeling that, owing to the importance of making a division between the child at home and the child at school, the Ministry of Education should not be the authority to take charge of these children?
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the publication of a supplement to the Report of the Care of Children Committee, giving the name of each institution to which reference is made in the Report together with the name of the authority responsible for it.
    Mr. Ede:This material has not been given me. I would remind my hon. Friend that in paragraph 101 of the Report, the committee said:
    "A much more searching inquiry would have been necessary if we had intended to give a judicial opinion on the merits of any establishment, and we have therefore thought it right not to mention any one of them by name in this Report."
    Mrs. Castle:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present position gives us the worst of both worlds, in that great public anxiety has been aroused by a specific statement of terrible abuses existing in given institutions, while public opinion is not allowed to be brought to bear on clearing up those abuses because the names of the institutions are withheld? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider it?
    Mr. Ede:No, Sir. I did not draft the Report, and I think the reasons given in the Report which I have quoted are sufficiently sound for me not to attempt to find out what the names were, because I should then have to conduct a further inquiry to make sure that stigmatising the places would be justified.
    Mr. Nicholson:Is there not enough prima facie evidence in this Report for a further inquiry of that nature?
    Mr. Ede:No, Sir. I think there is prima facie evidence in the Report for action to be taken to remove the causes of the conditions detailed.
    Mr. Lipson:Would it not be possible to inform the local authorities where these institutions are situated in confidence, so that they may have inquiries made to see that the children do not suffer?
    Mr. Ede:The names are not in my possession. The only thing I have is the Report.
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to make available the proceedings of the Care of Children Committee, including memoranda submitted, verbal evidence and cross-examination of witnesses.
    Mr. Ede:In view of the comprehensive nature of the Report and the full Press reports on the evidence given to the committee, some of which has been printed and circulated by witnesses themselves, I am doubtful on present information whether there is a sufficient case for the publication of additional material.
    Mr. Lindsay:Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply, in view of the fact that a great deal of this evidence has been circulated to various bodies, and is now public, and all that is required is to collate the memoranda? May I ask him if he is absolutely certain that the amount of work involved is not commensurate with the importance of the question?
    Mr. Ede:I am far more concerned with being able to do something to remedy the state of affairs disclosed by this Report than to take steps which would inevitably delay an appropriate decision being reached and appropriate recommendations being made to the House.
    Mr. Osbert Peake:In view of the great importance of the issues raised by this Report, and the fact that we do not all agree on all the conclusions of the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to publish the evidence?
    Mr. Ede:I think my last answer ought to be conclusive. This was an inquiry where the sittings were held in public, and we had very full reports which were made while the evidence was being given, and certain of the interested parties who were in a position to do so have published and circulated the evidence they contributed. I am very anxious that we should not get engaged in long controversy, which so often arises on these Reports and postpones effective action being taken.
    Mr. Peake:Surely, the mere printing of the evidence would not in any way delay the matter?
    Mr. Wilson Harris:In view of the tact that the Report itself contains 146 closely printed pages, would not the total evidence be too voluminous?
    Mr. Churchill:Surely, the publication of part of the evidence will be detrimental, will it not? Either there should be publication of the full evidence, or it should all be kept secret?
    Mr. Ede:There is no publication by the Government of any of the evidence. The evidence was given in public, and, therefore, to that extent, may be regarded as having been published at the time it was delivered. We are dealing here with a very urgent matter, on which I think the country is very deeply disturbed, and I am anxious to do nothing that shall delay effective action being taken. Although I will consider the representations that have been made this afternoon, I very much doubt if the public interest would be served by the delay that would be involved in getting this evidence printed.

    GERMANY'S FUTURE
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government will propose a meeting of the Big Four to consider the future of Germany in the light of recent international developments.
    The Prime Minister:It is hoped that the Council of Foreign Ministers will discuss Germany before the end of November. It is possible that their discussions may continue in the New Year. There is no intention of arranging any other meeting about Germany at present.
    Mr. Chamberlain:While I appreciate what the Prime Minister has said, would he not agree that the recent replies by Marshal Stalin to certain questions put by the United Press of America, with regard to Germany, are in fact very much in line with the policy of this country and America; and does he not think on those grounds that this is a most opportune moment to do what I am suggesting?
    The Prime Minister:I am not quite sure what the hon. Member is suggesting. I think it is best that this should be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the Foreign Secretaries.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood:Will the Prime Minister discourage the use of the term "Big Four," either by hon. Members or otherwise, in view of its exclusion of both China and the British Dominions?
    The Prime Minister:Yes, Sir; I do not think it is a very happy phrase.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Scotland (Training)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to train the 75,000 unemployed persons in Scotland; in what categories are they being trained; and how many of this total are receiving no training whatsoever.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs):I cannot accept the hon. Member's assumption that if there are 75,000 unemployed persons they all require a course of training. Nothing could be further from a correct appreciation of the needs. Training is provided only for those who need it to enable them to get into suitable employment, and it is provided in a very great variety of occupations. The facilities are being expanded as rapidly as possible.
    Sir W. Darling:Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last part of my Question—how many of the 75,000 persons unemployed are not being trained? This is rather a large number.
    Mr. Isaacs:It is difficult to say how many are receiving no training, because some are still receiving training in their own works, but the actual number receiving training in Government training establishments is 2,615 in five training centres. Another four training centres will be opened shortly and they will have a capacity of 2,000.
    Sir W. Darling:In Scotland?
    Mr. Isaacs:In Scotland.

    Personal Case
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Labour why the employment exchange has overruled the Appeal Board in the case of D. G. Tyler, Rose Hill, Oxford, about which his Department has been informed, forcing him to be a permanent navvy under the Essential Work Order.
    Mr. Isaacs:The appeal board recommendation that Mr. Tyler should be allowed to leave his employment as a builder's labourer has not been overruled. A further question of his taking other work arose under the Control of Engagement Orders, and it has now been decided that he should be allowed to take up the employment he has in view.
    Sir G. Fox:Is it not a fact that the local employment exchange tried to overrule the appeal board and, since I have put this Question down, the exchange have had to bow to the ruling of the appeal board?
    Mr. Isaacs:The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got his facts right. The appeal board were asked only whether he was allowed to leave his old employment. This man is still under direction, as he is in the building industry, and whilst he is allowed to go from one job to another that does not mean automatically that he can leave the building industry. When we looked at the alternative employment which he was seeking, we decided he should have permission to transfer.

    Statutory Orders (Industry Letters)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that various industry letters are used in some statutory instruments, for example, ZVN and SA in the Control of Engagement Orders, without any statutory or other published

    781
    definition of their meaning; and whether he will give an assurance that this omission will be rectified forthwith.
    Mr. Isaacs:The industry letters used in the Control of Engagement Orders are a convenient method of readily identifying certain categories of persons to whom certain provisions of these Orders apply. Holders of unemployment books have only to look at their books to see if the identification applies to them. No statutory definition is, therefore, called for. The significance of the symbols was explained in the reply given to the hon. Member on 22nd October.
    Sir J. Mellor:As these formulae appear in statutory instruments, how are hon. Members who have to consider these instruments to decide whether they should be accepted or not if they cannot ascertain the meaning of the formulae?
    Mr. Isaacs:The meaning of the formulae is explained in the answer to the hon. Member of 22nd October.

    Statutory Orders (Amending Slips)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Labour how he proposes to substitute correct, for the existing incorrect, explanatory notes to those copies of S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1278 and 1417, which were laid upon the Table and have been placed in the custody of the Librarian of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Isaacs:Copies of the amending slips have been sent both to the Vote Office and to the Librarian.

    Nurses
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Labour what is the declared shortage of nurses in hospitals in Gloucestershire; how many trained nurses in that county are employed in surgeries and first-aid stations attached to factories; what is the total number of workers at these factories; and what was the number of nurses and workers in 1944.
    Mr. Isaacs:The number of vacancies for full-time nurses in hospitals in Gloucestershire notified to my Department is 235. As regards the other parts of the Question, I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Parkin:In view of the appalling figures in the first part of the Minister's answer, will he not look very carefully to see whether he can "scrape the barrel" a little bit from the other establishments?
    Mr. Isaacs:It is almost a question of rolling out the barrel, not scraping it. We are faced with this very extreme difficulty in all areas and we try to ensure that whatever staff is available is shared as equitably as possible.

    Juveniles (Hours of Work)
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now rescind the wartime emergency powers granted to factory inspectors of permitting juveniles under 16 years of age to work more than 44 hours per week.
    Mr. Isaacs:By the end of last August the number of such permissions had fallen to 600, as compared with over 12,000 at the cessation of hostilities. I am having detailed inquiry made with a view to considering whether the remainder can all be brought to an end by the end of this year.

    COST OF LIVING (SUBSIDIES)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the cost-of-living index number of 205 for August, 1946, takes into any account the £350,000,000 of cost-of-living subsidy.
    Mr. Isaacs:Fully.
    Sir W. Smithers:Would it not be much better and healthier for the country if this subsidy was removed by stages so that the public could be made aware of the awful tragedy of the situation brought about by the presence of this Government?
    Mr. Isaacs:I fully answered the Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir W. Smithers:But the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the supplementary.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax (Sailing Vessels)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that purchase tax is being claimed on sailing vessels of which delivery was taken before they were

    783
    exempted from tax; and whether he would be prepared to exempt these vessels also.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall):I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has given directions that the tax collected before this exemption came into force should be refunded, provided the benefit is passed on to the customer.

    Post Office Savings Bank (Limit)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present limit upon Post Office Savings Bank accounts; and whether it is his intention to raise this in the near future.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall:Deposits up to £500 in any one year with a total limit of £2,000. No alteration is contemplated.

    SIR OSWALD MOSLEY
    Mr. Austinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to prevent further breaches of the peace occasioned by the multifarious activities of Sir Oswald Mosley and those associated with him, particularly with reference to anti-sectarian incitement at book club meetings.
    Mr. Ede:It is the duty of the police to take every possible step, within the limits of their resources, to prevent all breaches of the peace, and the police will take appropriate action wherever there is evidence of incitements to commit breaches of the peace.
    Mr. Austin:Is the Minister not aware that the doctrine of Fascism is so completely anathema to the British people that any meeting of any character under the auspices of Sir Oswald Mosley is bound to occasion a breach of the peace? I earnestly ask whether he will not look into this before it becomes a threat.
    Mr. Ede:Oh, no, Sir. I believe the British people have a far greater sense of proportion than that.
    Mr. Austin:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    GERMAN NAZI LEADERS (ENTRY TO U.K.)
    Mr. Austinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that in no circumstances will entry to this country of persons tried as war criminals such as Von Papen, Schacht and Fritsche be allowed.
    Mr. Ede:I should require to be satisfied that there were the most imperative reasons in the national interest for their admission before I agreed to the entry to this country of any of the persons named.

    PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission; and when it is expected to complete its task.
    Mr. Ede:Publication of the Commission's proposed recommendations affecting all constituencies in England and Wales has been completed. I am not in a position to make any statement about the time which may be required for the consideration of representations and the holding of any local inquiries.
    Sir Ian Fraser:Will the Home Secretary assure the House that every reasonable facility is given by the Commissions for hearing local opinion before they make any proposals, and can he say when legislation will be introduced to implement its Report?
    Mr. Ede:I have heard from various hon. Members expressions of approval of the way the inquiries have been conducted when the public inquiry stage has been reached. I am not in a position to say when legislation will be introduced.
    Mr. Alpass:May I ask the Home Secretary whether it is not a fact that these recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners are based upon the number of electors in 1945, and seeing that there is already taking place a large influx of people—
    Mr. Speaker:This Question only asked what progress is being made—not for the details.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite:May I ask the Home Secretary whether he would bear in mind that it might be desirable, once the House has had an opportunity of studying the recommendations in detail, to have a Debate before any Bill is introduced?
    Mr. Ede:We shall see when we have had an opportunity of considering the final stages of the reports.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any undue delay on the part of the Government in announcing their decision upon this matter would have a very serious effect?
    Mr. Ede:We must wait until we have the reports of the Commissions in our hands. Undoubtedly, the Commissions at this stage are considering the reports that have been made on the public inquiries that have already been held, and no one as yet knows what the result of the inquiries has been.

    DISMISSED POLICE (PENSIONS)
    Mr. Wadsworthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to assist those discharged police pensioners who are now unemployed but unable, because they are police pensioners, to draw unemployment pay and whose pension does not become payable until the official end of hostilities.
    Mr. Ede:I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the cases of men who were dismissed from the police for misconduct after having secured their pensions under the provisions of the Police and Firemen (War Service) Acts, and who thereby become entitled, notwithstanding their dismissal, to receive their pensions when the emergency is declared at an end for the purpose of those Acts. The matter is governed by the statutory provisions, and is not one on which I have power to take any action.

    CHILD ADOPTION
    Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent report about the unsatisfactory conditions for young children in many homes and institutions in this country and the fact that many people are
    786
    ignorant of the facilities provided by the Adoption of Children Acts, he will take steps at an early stage to draw public attention to these facilities with a view to encouraging the adoption of a greater number of children, with a consequent reduction of those maintained in homes and institutions.
    Mr. Ede:I have no reason to believe that special steps are required to draw the attention of the public to the statutory provision made for legal adoption, which is now widely known. I shall, however, gladly consider any measures which may be desirable and practicable for ensuring that no unnecessary obstacle is placed in the way of the adoption of homeless children where adoption is in the child's best interests.

    CAR PARKING, LONDON
    Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the shortage of garage accommodation in London; and whether he will consider some modification of the obstruction law which is now preventing the parking of private motorcars in cul-de-sacs, etc., where in fact, no actual obstruction can occur
    Mr. Ede:No, Sir. The shortage of garage accommodation cannot justify the obstruction of traffic by cars parked in the highway.

    SAVERNAKE FOREST EXPLOSION (N.F.S.)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, when the heroism of the military during the Savernake Forest explosions was recognised, the bravery of the N.F.S. men on that occasion received no mention.
    Mr. Ede:I thank the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity to express my personal appreciation of the gallant conduct displayed by members of the National Fire Service on this occasion. The possibility of the selection of particular individuals for special recognition is under consideration.
    Mr. Reid:Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these splendid men came from all parts of Wiltshire?
    Mr. Ede:Oh, yes; I am very grateful indeed for the way in which the call for help was answered.

    ALIEN DOMESTIC SERVANTS
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average period taken by his Department to conclude inquiries into the cases of ex-enemy aliens for whom requests have been made to the Ministry of Labour for permission to enter this country as domestic servants.
    Mr. Ede:The Home Office does not keep progress records of these cases among the thousands of applications of various kinds relating to aliens which are handled every week.
    Mr. Walker-Smith:As the time taken is disproportionately long, can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of shortening the period?
    Mr. Ede:It was because I thought that the time taken was rather long that I sent my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to Austria and Germany to investigate the causes of the delay, and I am glad to say that since his return we have been able to expedite action in these cases.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (INTERRUPTIONS)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been drawn to the danger caused in factories and hospitals by the sudden cutting off of electric current; and whether he will arrange for warning to be given to such users before electricity is cut off?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell):These interruptions of electricity supply are due to shortage of generating plant, which is insufficient to meet peak loads. The shortage arises from the fact that only a few power stations could be built during the war, while consumption has increased to 55 per cent. above 1938. A large programme of new power stations was approved as soon as the war ended; but these stations take several years to construct, and we shall be short of electricity supplies during this period. All possible steps are taken by the Central
    788
    Electricity Board to issue warnings through the B.B.C. and the Press and to individual electricity undertakings when there is a likelihood that generating capacity will not be able to meet the demand. And electricity undertakings are instructed to avoid as far as possible cutting of supplies without telephone warning to hospitals, factories engaged in continuous process work, and other establishments where sudden interruption would he dangerous. It is not, of course, practicable to give individual notice except to a small proportion of consumers.
    A general warning could only be given if there were a prearranged plan to cut off supplies to particular areas on given days, even if it proved technically unnecessary to do so on those days. The choice lies between having a prearranged interruption of supply which might have been avoided or a sudden interruption which occurs only when it becomes inevitable. In these circumstances the best solution would be for everyone to reduce consumption as far as possible during the peak hours of eight to 10 in the morning and four to six in the afternoon. It is only by the utmost economy that these interruptions can be reduced to a minimum.
    Mr. Keeling:Is the Minister aware that, unless specific warning mentioning a time and place is given, the effect on production will be very serious?
    Mr. Shinwell:As I indicated, warning is given wherever possible, but it is not possible to give a specific warning to all.
    Earl Winterton:Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that in the case of hospitals, for example, they must refrain from carrying out operations between the hours of eight and 10 in the morning; and cannot he reconsider the question of hospitals, which is really a most urgent one? Why cannot operating hospitals always be informed in advance?
    Mr. Shinwell:As I have indicated in my answer, every possible attempt is made to inform hospitals, as, of course, is desirable in the circumstances. As regards asking hospitals and similar institutions to refrain from using electricity between the hours I have indicated, that is not our intention, but it may be possible for them to exercise some kind of economy.
    Major Haughton:Can the Minister say, when the amount of equipment is known, whether it would not be advisable to warn hospitals that the current will be cut off at such and such an hour, even though it may not be necessary at the last moment to do so?
    Mr. Shinwell:Unfortunately, it is not always possible for the control engineers employed by the Central Electricity Board—to whom I wish to pay my tribute for their conduct of these very delicate and highly technical operations—to estimate, at any given moment, what the peak load is going to be. That depends very largely on the consumers and, therefore, the control engineers cannot alternate the frequency which guides this matter and determines how much electricity is going to be used in the way that hon. Members desire.
    Mr. Churchill:Is it not possible—I hazard the suggestion with great humility—to give a momentary flick two or three times by way of a five-minutes' warning that there is going to be a stoppage?
    Mr. Shinwell:I am not certain whether that proposal would be practicable, but, naturally, even in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's humility, we will give it consideration.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the operating theatre in every hospital has a stand-by electric plant, which provides for an emergency such as this?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart:Does the Minister wish the House to understand from his statement that the shortage of coal has nothing to do with these electricity cuts?
    Mr. Shinwell:That is precisely what I indicated. The recent shedding of load has nothing to do with the shortage of solid fuel, although it is quite possible that, during the winter period, there may be some occasional shortage of fuel which may cause some distress to the electricity concerns. But that situation has not yet emerged.
    Mr. Tiffany:Is the Minister aware that, owing to the electro-magnetic control of switchgear, it would be impossible to give the warning suggested?
    Mr. Erroll:Is not the Minister to be congratulated for once on not blaming the Tories for this?
    Mr. Shinwell:I have a desire to be temperate, which prevents me from reminding hon. Members that there was a great deal of neglect before the beginning of the war.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill:May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make upon Business?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison):Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 4th November—Consideration of Amendments to the National Health Service Bill and to the Atomic Energy Bill, which are expected to be received from another place.
Tuesday, 5th November—A Debate on home and overseas trade on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Wednesday, 6th November—Consideration of any Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place on Wednesday, and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, 12th November.
Mr. Wilson Harris:Can the Leader of the House hold out any expectation of a day early in the new Session for the discussion of the Curtis Report?
Mr. Morrison:I do not think it would be appropriate that I should give any indication about that at this stage. It is possible that an opportunity will arise on the Address, but it is governed by the date on which the Ministers concerned are able to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Driberg:Although it is not Government Business, could my right hon. Friend be good enough to tell the House when we may expect the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure; and, since that Measure will be the subject of debate, will he give an assurance that there will be a free vote?
Mr. Morrison:My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is not a Government Measure. It moves along like a private Bill, and the promoters settle the time

791
with the authorities of the House, but I understand that it will be put down for Tuesday next. In this case, my hon. Friend is quite right in assuming that there will be no question of Government Whips taking part in the Business.
Brigadier Peto:Can the Leader of the House promise any time for a Debate on the Motion which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and many others, No. 69 on the Order Paper of 28th October, relating to the acquisition of land by Service Departments?
[That, while appreciating the need for adequate training areas for the forces, this House, in view of the difficulties put in the way both of agricultural production and of rural rehousing by the acquisition of land by Service departments and of the destruction of rural beauty, calls for a public inquiry into the whole policy of Service acquisitions and demands that wherever possible any acquisitions that may be made in the future be under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, which permits of a preliminary public inquiry. ]
Mr. Morrison:I am afraid not. I do not think that we can add to the commitments during the terminating days of this Session.
Mr. S. Silverman:Can my right hon. Friend say what will be the form of the Debate on home and overseas trade on Tuesday, and whether it will be in such a form as to enable the House to discuss the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade the other day concerning the reconstruction of the Japanese textile industry, and its effect on the Lancashire textile industry?
Mr. Morrison:The Debate will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. It is, of course, a matter for Mr. Speaker, but I should have thought that if it were sought to argue that certain happenings in Japan are damaging to the textile industry in Lancashire it would be
792
possible to raise it during the Debate. I ought, perhaps, to say that arrangements in respect of the Debate have been made with the Liberal Members of the House on this occasion.
Mr. Churchill:Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the great importance of giving a long period in the new Session for the Debate on the Address which enables so many topics to be cleared out of the way and which, if used in its full scope, greatly lightens the further Business of the Session?
Mr. Morrison:We should, of course, give proper and appropriate time for the Debate on the Address. Perhaps we cannot undertake to give as long as the right hon. Gentleman himself arranged during the war, when, I think, it went to fairly extensive lengths, which was all right at that time. However, the matter can be discussed through the usual channels, and we will try to agree what the appropriate period should be.
Sir Waldron Smithers:Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance as to the procedure you propose to adopt this evening on the six Prayers which appear on the Paper in relation to the cotton industry? Do you propose to take them all en bloc or separately?
Mr. Speaker:Obviously, they all raise the same point and, therefore, they can all be taken together.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite:May I ask a question arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Business? I gather that we have certain Business to dispose of on Wednesday prior to the Prorogation. Is the House meeting at the usual time, and are Questions to be taken on that day?
Mr. Morrison:On Wednesday the House will meet at the usual time, 2.30 p.m., and Questions will be taken as usual. I cannot say what Business there will be after that, nor can I say at what time the actual Prorogation will take place. We may know next week.

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  "to provide for the establishment of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Westwood; supported by Mr. Arthur Greenwood, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Thomas Fraser; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL (Recommitted) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  DEFENCE (CENTRAL ORGANISATION)
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th October]:
  "That this House approves the proposals in Command Paper No. 6923 for the Central Organisation for Defence."
  Question again proposed.
  3.45 p.m.
  Brigadier Head:I think I am voicing the opinion of those who were here yesterday when I say that the House did not find this Debate particularly easy or enthralling, but I believe it would be most unwise to think that the cause of that lay in any lack of interest in the subject of defence. I believe that the cause lay in the fact that this White Paper which we are now discussing would very probably be exactly the same had we on this side of the House been in power. I think there is very little disagreement on the White Paper as a whole, and for that reason it has not been easy for hon. Members to find points which they particularly wish to stress or argue with the Government. Secondly, there are comparatively few hon. Members in this House who have had practical experience of what we are discussing, which is really a very technical organisation. I, therefore, hope that the House will be lenient with me on this the second day of a Debate which one might,
  794
  perhaps, say is drawing peacefully to its close.
  Most points have been touched on. It would need a better brain than mine to find in the White Paper a brand new subject which no one has mentioned, and I will trouble the House with only three points; first, about the section dealing with collective defence; secondly, about the Ministry of Defence itself; and lastly, on the question of the apportionment of resources. The first point I wish to mention, which is referred to in the White Paper as collective defence, and is usually referred to as Imperial defence, was discussed by many speakers yesterday. It struck me that many wise and constructive suggestions were made and, in addition, a great many arguments were adduced in support of the existing arrangements. But I did feel that, with the exception of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), there was a tendency to miss what, in my opinion, is the really important point in this respect, which appears to me to be this: The Empire is now facing an entirely different nature of threat than it has ever faced before, and, therefore, it seems to me that our arrangements for collaboration and preparation for Imperial defence as a whole must be designed not on what we did before, not on precedent, not on any slavish interpretation of the exact letter of the Statute of Westminster, but designed to measure up to the nature of the threat with which we may be faced. It is for that reason, with this new danger before us, that I believe we should examine the proposals in the White Paper.
  May I for a moment enlarge upon this matter? Today, modern weapons appear to me to have brought to this matter three new factors. First, they have a vastly increased range; secondly, there is the great speed with which they arrive; and, thirdly, there is the appalling extent of their destruction. That, in turn, seems to affect our Empire defence in so much as this country has become much more vulnerable to long-range attacks; and secondly, a sudden knock-out blow, the quick ending of the war in its early stages, appears to be more possible and likely.
  That in turn surely demands of our defence two factors especially: firstly, a higher state of preparedness, and secondly, as far as we can achieve it,

  795
  an increased degree of dispersion. The state of preparedness with which we went into the last war is surely no criterion for this new threat. Because of Adolf Hitler and other circumstances we had a year. For the next war the breathing space will not be measured in years or minutes, but possibly days; and it does seem to me that to gain the correct state of preparedness for any future war our plans and preparations with the Empire should develop, as the White Paper leaves them open to develop, bearing this particular and new threat in mind.
  It is very easy, I think, to exaggerate the necessity for great dispersion. However, it is equally unwise to ignore it altogether. I noticed, on reading the "Economist," that the Russians, of all people, have so arranged their five years' industry plan as to ensure dispersal for their industry. If that is being done in a vast country like Russia, how much more necessary for this tiny little island. We, the British Empire, straggle across the world like a great wheel, and at the middle is this island, the hub, which contains the majority of our white man-power, the majority of our industry and the network of our communications. I am aware that this business of dispersion can be much exaggerated. I do not think there is any appalling threat, but I do feel that, gradually, we should try to get some of tin strength of the hub out into the spokes. I believe that Hiroshima took some of the future out of hubs, and we must he careful in this respect. I mention this, because it demands a very close degree of collaboration and preliminary planning with the Dominions. I hope that in this problem we shall take note of the practical realities of the situation and not of precedent, because if we are slaves to precedent it seems to me that we shall be partners. not in an act of collective defence but in an act of collective folly.
  The next point I would like to mention concerns the Ministry of Defence itself. I have noticed that when matters of finance are concerned in which hon. Members have a particular concern they usually own up at the start of the Debate. As far as this Ministry is concerned, I think I should admit that I was in it for some three years in varying capacities, and for a year of that time within the Cabinet Secretariat. So I may be said to have
  796
  vested interests to that extent. However, I hope hon. Gentlemen will take my remarks as they are meant, in a helpful spirit. I believe everybody welcomes the White Paper, regularising this organisation for defence in form of a Ministry of Defence. I think that that is in every way excellent, and that everyone will agree But there is one thing which worried me a little. It is perfectly logical that a Minister should have under him a Ministry. This organisation has been called many names; it was the C.I.D., the Offices of the War Cabinet, the Offices of the Minister of Defence, and once, for security reasons, it was called "care of Mr. Rance." I know it would be unseemly for the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry to be called "care of Mr. Rance." But the fact that it is called a Ministry is a little frightening, because of what we have learned to understand by that term. Today, it seems to me, we live in an age of bureaucratic boom; Ministries are, so to speak, booming. It would be a tragedy if this became what is truly understood as a Ministry. My fears were borne out yesterday when I opened "The Times"—which, I must say in passing, I think is always excellent on defence. My fears for this word "Ministry" were borne out by this sentence:
  "The new organisation is based on a full-blown Ministry of Defence in place of a Minister of Defence assisted only by a Secretariat."
  "Full-blown" was the term which caught my eye. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not become full-blown, because if he does, he will be running a very grave risk.
  I have studied the White Paper carefully about the structure which goes into this Ministry of Defence. As I see it there is nothing new. A part of the Cabinet Offices is being taken out, and it is being called the Ministry of Defence. It says in the White Paper that it has extra responsibilities, such as combined operations, with a Joint Intelligence Bureau. As far as I remember, they were looked after in the old days by Offices of the War Cabinet. There are certain extra chairmen and certain new committees, but the structure of the thing seems to me to be the same. It is for this reason that I think it is not, if I interpret it aright, a Ministry in the accepted sense of the word. May I go a little further? Suppose hon.

  797
  Gentlemen were to come with me, and we were to go round the right hon. Gentleman's Department—his Ministry. Going in there hon. Members might think they had been misled, because inside they would find many soldiers, sailors and airmen, with ranks of field-marshal down to captain, commander and so forth; they would find many people from the Foreign Office, eminent civil servants, and probably some very expensive looking scientists. But they would not belong to the right hon. Gentleman. The whole object and purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's organisation, as I understand it—no doubt he will correct me if there is any change—is that all this body should meet under his roof so as to resolve the various conflicting differences, problems and counter-attractions which exist between the great Service Ministries and civil Departments. Where these great machines meet there is a small staff, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, and assisted by certain permanent chairmen who are running round trying to ensure that the great wheels keep in gear, that there is no grating or grinding in the machine, that no grit gets into the works, and that they are kept properly oiled.
  The reason why the secretariat are able to do such services as they can, is because there are few of them. Once they grew in size they would not know what each other was doing. I assure hon. Gentlemen—and I believe most, and probably all, of them would agree with me—that the great danger to that organisation is that it should get big. If it gets big it may somehow work in peacetime, but its true function is to stand the test of war, Now, it has already stood the test of war; that machine was hard driven, and I think anyone there would agree that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was very keen on the accelerator. However, it stood the test, and I hope and pray that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow it to grow. I believe it was said of his very eminent namesake, Alexander the Great, that when he had conquered half the world his astronomer said to him, "There are in the universe many worlds just as big as, or bigger than this one." When the great man heard that tears welled up in his eyes. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman looks out of his window in Whitehall and sees the great bureaucratic edifices, which are being erected by his
  798
  colleagues on the Front Bench, no tears will come into his eyes, but that he will keep his Ministry small. Believe me, the day when the right hon. Gentleman allows the appointment of as much as one surplus charlady he will be embarking on the road to ruin.
  The last point I have to make to the House concerns the apportionment of resources, which is referred to in the White Paper in paragraph 27. I think that anybody who read this paragraph would feel soothed, because it is a beautifully drafted paragraph, and it is absolutely correct and true. At the risk of wearying the House I should like to read one short part of it. It says:
  "The Chiefs of Staff will advise the Defence Committee on our strategic requirements from year to year. It will then be for the Service Departments to translate these requirements into terms of men, money and supplies, and for the Minister of Defence to cordinate the results, with the help of the Chiefs of Staff and the Committee of Service Ministers described in paragraph 29 below, and to present to the Defence Committee a coherent scheme of expenditure which will give the country forces and equipment in properly balanced proportions."
  That sounds fine, and it is perfectly true. But the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that it is not as simple as that. I have looked carefully at the White Paper to see whether any new organisation is being created as regards the combined estimates. The problem, it strikes me, is this. There is bound to be a conflicting shortage in men and money, and the three Chiefs of Staff and their Service Ministries will get together to try to reach agreed estimates. But I cannot believe that the gap between requirements and availability is going to be bridged by Services agreement alone. My experience of matters of this kind is that somebody has to give the cuts, and he has to judge whether he should give a big cut to one of the Services, or a small cut, or what. The real crux that arises here is: Who is to brief the right hon. Gentleman in making his decision? This is a very grave decision. He will be coming into competition against the Services. I have no doubt he will do everything needed himself, and I believe that that is the best way; but I am little uncertain whether he is expected to get a great deal of information, and so forth, out of this Committee referred to in paragraph 29 as the new Committee of Service Ministers. I feel there is danger in that,

  799
  but I am not quite clear on that point, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to mention, when he replies, exactly how that works?
  There was mentioned yesterday in the Debate that the right hon. Gentleman's one disadvantage in this respect was, that his impartial judgment on the question of Estimates was somewhat corroded by salt water. I do not believe that will hinder him at all, and if it does, may I remind him that Voltaire said that in England, now and again, it is necessary to shoot an admiral to encourage the others. The senior Service are never backward in coming forward on behalf of their great Service, and I think that in his case he may find it necessary to shoot an admiral now and again to discourage the others.
  The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. A. V. Alexander):That example is not confined to the Navy. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the Army's history.
  Brigadier Head:I accept that rebuke and I think we agree, in general, that impartiality is what the Services desire I very much welcome this proposal of combined estimates for two particular reasons. First, I think it is the only measure in the White Paper which is really new, and I welcome it particularly because the old fashioned method of combining estimates before the war was really, as hon. Members may remember, a very poor one. What happened before the war when the three Services put in their estimates? They were shown to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then gasped and stretched his eyes, and a percentage cut of uniform size throughout the three Services was put on. Of course, the clever ones started to add a little bit against that. I do feel that this is a great advance on that old system, and I believe that everyone will welcome it for that reason.
  I have a second reason for welcoming this, and it is because we now have one man who is responsible for the whole of our defences in the country. Under the Prime Minister he is charged with responsibility for the safety of this country. It is for him to judge whether the resources of the country are being diverted in insufficient quantities for defence. It is unwise to recriminate in these Debates, but the White Paper says:
  800
  "In many respects, however, we were, in 1939, dangerously unprepared for war."
  I am inclined to think that if we had had a Minister of Defence in those prewar years, with the powers the Minister is to have now, we might have avoided some of this, because the warning was there from a military point of view. The warning was there, but, in the conflict between social measures and defence, the money was not given. If such an eventuality happened today it is the right hon. Gentleman's obvious duty—and I am sure he will do it—the moment he thinks that the country's safety is being endangered, whatever the risk may be, to remember he has always behind him his resignation, which will not be his resignation alone, but will suggest to the public that there is dissatisfaction among all those responsible for our military defence. I think that is a great asset. But I think, also, that I should apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for talking about resignation today, which is really his birthday. Or rather, I should, perhaps, say this is the day of the right hon. Gentleman's birth.
  I think, from what I have seen of this Debate, that both the White Paper which gave birth to him, and the newborn Minister, are both doing very well. We shall know more when we hear his first cries tonight. If he will allow me, I should like to congratulate the Government on the choice of the right hon. Gentleman to fill this very responsible post. I believe that the majority of the House agree with me in this respect. Fifteen hundred years ago a very wise Roman, whose name I have forgotten, said "He who desires peace, should prepare for war." It is a melancholy fact that today, 1,50o years later, that is just as true as it was on the day it was uttered. For that reason I believe—although it is not for me to say so—that the majority of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will support the right hon. Gentleman very loyally in his difficult task. There is one thing that is certain, and that is that the House is absolutely unanimous in that they hope for the day, in some distant future, when the right hon. Gentleman's Office will be a sinecure, and when mankind can devote all its time to the pursuits of peace.
  4.10 p.m.
  Brigadier Low:To follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head)

  801
  in this most important Debate is not an easy task, because, as he has told us, he has had the matchless experience of having served in an equivalent Ministry to that which has just been created. I want to come straight to the last part of the White Paper, and I propose to confine my remarks to the problems of collective defence. I dare to intervene on this matter, not because I have technical knowledge, but because, as a result of having fought and served on staffs during the war with representatives of all the Dominions, in the Middle East and in Italy, and having discussed the importance of Imperial unity in defence matters with them, I have an intense desire to see the fullest practical cooperation between the Dominions and the United Kingdom, not only to win, but to prevent future wars. It is because of the intensity of that desire that I shall be driven in the few minutes during which I hope to address the House to make remarks that the right hon. Gentleman may think are rather beyond reality. Perhaps he and the House will forgive me, because the intensity of that desire is born, not of private considerations and speculations, but of genuine discussions with many serving men of my own age throughout the Empire.
  During this Debate reference has been made from time to time to the problem of Imperial defence. I should like to make my own view clear at once about one matter which I think has bulked quite large in this House, and in another place, and that is the name of the committee of which the right hon. Gentleman will be deputy chairman. I agree with the Government that the committee should be called the Defence Committee. Its name is rightly that, and it would be quite wrongly named the Committee of Imperial Defence—quite wrongly, because it is a sub-committee of the Cabinet which deals primarily with the defence of the United Kingdom, and has planning and executive responsibilities. It would indeed be an affront to the Dominions if we took upon ourselves the right to call it the Committee of Imperial Defence. In passing, I would suggest that perhaps the time may come when the designation of the chief of the Army staff may have to be altered.
  When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday I welcomed the line he took about Dominion cooperation. I welcomed it, particularly,
  802
  because I think he was more definite in expressing the Government's desire to this end, than was the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions in another place. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is suffering a little from the fear because of words which have appeared over my name, that I may be going to discuss this matter in the spirit of 1904. Let me reassure him about that at once. If I make any errors, I think it will be because I discuss it in the spirit of 1960, and that perhaps is an error which a young man is entitled to commit, even in this House.
  I understand the difficulties in getting Dominion agreement to the setting up of a central organisation for defence. I appreciate them, but because I do I shall not necessarily be defeated by them, and I am quite certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Prime Minister will be defeated by them. I realise that the very mention of a central organisation in London has been in the past, and still remains, a bugbear in the minds of many Dominion experts in this matter. As it has been put to me by some people, there is a suspicion in the mind of an expert, say from Canada, that, when he talks to an expert from the United Kingdom about a paper prepared on defence, that that paper is really a paper to provide for the defence of the United Kingdom, and not that of Canada inside the whole Empire. I realise that difficulty, and I realise too, that the whole position of Commonwealth relations is based on the tradition of loose-knit bonds. Finally, there is the great difficulty that there cannot be, in detail, any really common foreign policy, for the very good reason that all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations are sovereign in that respect.
  Let me make these points quite shortly on those difficulties. First, as to the respect we must all feel for Dominion sovereignty, in form and in spirit, I think that there could be consultation, not only on the Prime Minister and Ministry of Defence level, but also on the expert level, which would not necessarily commit the Governments. Consultations could be held without conflicting with our respect for their sovereignty. I put it to the House that if we are not very careful, in our anxiety to avoid causing offence to the Dominions, to avoid the appear-

  803
  ance of disrespect to their sovereignty by going slow in urging them to set up a central organisation, we may in fact produce the exact evil which we try to avoid. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, at the beginning of another war we must all be prepared, or else we shall go down. If another war looms up on the horizon some plan will have to be accepted. If the Dominion experts have not been in on the early formation of that plan, they will necessarily have to accept the plan that we have made ourselves. We must be careful, in our anxiety to avoid pressing upon them something which they do not like at this moment—and I would say at once that we can do no more than try to persuade them—that we do not, in the end, lead to the very evil which we and particularly they want to avoid.
  My second point is this. The Statute of Westminster is often put forward, together with the discussions which took place about the time it was passed, as a reason for going slow in pressing for a central organisation. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the differences between now and 1939, but there are even more differences, surely, between now and 1932 or 1926, when it was accepted that now and for some time, the main responsibility for defence must rest on this country. My third point concerns a common foreign policy. I believe, and I am strengthened in that belief by looking at reports of international conferences, that there is a highest common factor on which we and the Dominions agree now and will always agree. That highest common factor is based upon the British way of life, which has spread out from this country all over the globe. History has shown that in great crises we always do agree in the end, but for the reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend has given we must not now be complacent about what history has shown. Surely we must push forward and try to take advantage of the lessons we have learnt.
  As a result of the considerations which I have mentioned, I should like to urge once again that we in this country, and our friends and relations in the other parts of the Empire, cannot rightly talk about our own national defence in a watertight compartment. It is just as wrong to talk about the defence of this country in a watertight compartment as it would be to talk about the problems of the Army as
  804
  separate from the problems of the Navy. Collective security, and I am not afraid to use those words, gives strength in modern times. Collective defence of the British Commonwealth has always been called "Imperial defence," and I am not frightened to use that term either. Because of the world nature of wars, and because of the advances of science about which we have heard, we must get real cohesion. The spirit that binds this Empire together is well known, and as has been said in other places, a spirit without a body is surely no good on earth.
  I should like to add to these changed considerations one other point which has occurred to me as being important, and that is that since wars in the future are bound to be world conflicts, and since we now have a forum for world opinion in U.N.O., before a conflict comes into being there will have been time for all the nations of the world to express and form their opinions. Can the House really believe that those nations of the world whose whole outlook is based on the British way of life, can take a different line on a problem that is going to provoke a world conflict? U.N.O. will help us, and will not hinder us in getting the cohesion of those born to the British way of life.
  Let me come to the problem of organisation. Reading, as I have done many times, the earlier parts of the White Paper, it seems to me that all the arguments for the organisation which has come into being, are equally good arguments for the same kind of organisation to obtain an Imperial defence policy. Planning, we are told, must be done by those responsible for its execution, or their representatives. Coordination in planning and execution must take place, not only at the top on high level, but also with staff officers—that is the way we very often get the germs of a new idea. Defence cannot be considered apart from the problems of manpower and production. I should like to add a further argument which the Prime Minister has given me in his speech of yesterday, and that is to stress—
  "that action recommended on defence grounds in time of peace, may often involve some sacrifice of immediate civil advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October 1946; Vol. 428, c. 622.]
  For that reason, it is vital to have co-ordination, co-operation and discussion not only at conferences, but from day to day

  805
  between men who are experienced on the problems. In the White Paper, the main concentration is placed on the regional aspect of the problem. We know that during the war great attention was given to this matter and there have been proposals both by Mr. Curtin and Mr. Chifley, of Australia, towards that end. I think that we sometimes forget that if we are to have regional organisations, someone must control the priorities between these regions. It is worth remembering that Mr. Curtin, when he made the original proposal, said:
  "It is fundamental to future arrangements for cooperation of defence that appropriate machinery should be created to provide for the effective voice by the Governments considered in policy and in the higher control of planning on the official level."
  I do not see how there can be a proper system of regional defence, whether it is in the British Commonwealth of Nations, or in the whole world under the Security Council, without some control of priorities. I do not see how priorities can be controlled, unless there is some staff to help in that control.
  Let me deal now with manpower and the problem of industrial dispersal, about which it is necessary to have closer consultation between this country and the Dominions. I believe that defence manpower in the year, 1946, and later, must have some relation to the total manpower of the country or area which is being defended. It may be for that reason that some countries with far larger populations than ourselves, consider that they are entitled to have more men in their defence forces. I believe I am correct in saying, although I am unable adequately to check my figures, that the proportion of men in our fighting Forces doing jobs connected with defence is probably as high, if not higher, than anywhere. The reason for this is that we are providing defence not only for our country, but for a large proportion of the people of the Empire. That point is worth stressing the next time the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends are hauled over the coals by other people for having a larger proportion of men under arms, or for having budgeted for a larger proportion of money to be spent on defence services than other countries. For instance, it is curious to note—and I think these figures can be checked-that Soviet Russia, in 1946–47, budgeted for a 23 per cent. expenditure on defence
  806
  services, against 30 per cent. for this country.
  The difference is easy to explain, when we realise that we are undertaking at the moment such a large proportion of the defence of the Commonwealth. 1 hope that the time will come quite soon when we shall be able to have close consultation with the Dominions, and at any rate agree on a policy for the manpower questions, so that we can publish to the world that we are reasonably blameless in the matter of over-expenditure of our manpower on the fighting Services. I do not think anyone would accuse me of being an apostle of any unnecessary disarmament, so I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. There are many problems to be faced in the Empire as a whole. One has only to look at the possibilities of India to realise that there may be a shortage of men for defence in time to come. There are men in other parts of the world, in East Africa, for example, where 500,000 men came forward during the war. I am certain that through coordination in the Empire we can fill in the gaps. It is not only quantity but quality which we require in manpower—this is related to the next problem. If we are to make full use for defence purposes of the manpower available inside the Empire, there must be further consultations about the contribution of skilled men. It is worth remembering that though we say so often we have the majority of white people of the Empire in this country, that for every three men of the white population of the Empire only two live in the United Kingdom.
  Let me come to the question of dispersal of industrial potential. This may raise some embarrassment to some people, but I hope it is not going to embarrass the Government, because I have taken it from the mouth of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I am not suggesting that Liverpool should get on the march, and move off to some other part of the Empire. I am not suggesting that in the immediate future a large body of people, or large industries, should be moved from the country. What I mean by the dispersal of industrial potential is that all over the Empire we should try to duplicate and triplicate the industrial power that exists in this island. We must do it for reasons

  807
  which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton indicated to the House, and also to expand our economy and war potential. As with industry, so with communications. The history of the Empire in this century shows that many countries have built ports, other large undertakings, and effective communications which materially assisted towards the success of the last war. The 1039 Defence White Paper referred to the dispersal of the aircraft manufacturing industry in Australia, and other parts of the Empire. That is not a new problem, but I suggest that it is becoming such a vast problem that we must have closer co-ordination, not only between the heads of Governments, but also between their expert staffs.
  I can see your eye upon me, Mr. Speaker, and I am drawing to a close. I have taken the greatest interest in this matter, and I hope the House will bear with me for only a few more minutes while I put my concluding points. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) pointed out, in a most interesting speech, that collective defence means the ability to continue war whatever happens. I sometimes ask myself, and I now ask the House, this simple question: If the United Kingdom was destroyed, would the British Empire fall? Some would say, "No," and some would say, "Yes." There are men in the country who would say, "Yes," and it is wrong that there should be sensible men who would reach that conclusion.
  I am pressing for the establishment of a series of liaison missions which would form an Imperial defence secretariat, a secretariat of a purely advisory nature, because the Governments of countries are responsible for their own problems. This secretariat would have an advantage over the present liaison officer system in this respect. How can a liaison officer, particularly one who has spent many years of his life in one or other of the Services, grasp and understand the problems involved, and contribute to the discussion of the many wide aspects of defence which are covered in the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence? The object is to achieve liaison between similar defence committees in the Dominions and the United Kingdom Defence Committee. How can one or two men do that? There must be a reasonable sized staff, although
  808
  not a full-blown staff. That is my proposal, and I do not think it will alarm the right hon. Gentleman very much, especially as it is not foreign to the wishes of many people in the Dominions.
  Many people, besides my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton and myself, earnestly hope that we shall achieve as quickly as possible real cooperation, on a practical level, between ourselves and the Dominions. The object of that cooperation is simple, and can be stated like this: The British Empire won two wars, and prevented neither. We should like to have something strong enough—not rigid, but flexible—to stand up before the world as an Imperial defence policy, strong enough to show the world, or any aggressor in it, that we shall be together and prepared, if ever called upon again, to resist evil. We cannot do that unless we achieve real coordination, and we can only achieve that coordination if we have the men to do it, to acquire the information, and to contribute towards the necessary discussions. Would it not help the Dominion peoples to understand the vastness of this great problem if they had representatives on such a body, who would keep them informed of the obligations and responsibilities that lie on all parts of the Commonwealth, so that in the end it would not be only the Governments of the Dominions who would understand the problem but their peoples would understand it, their peoples who contribute so nobly towards defence?
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. Braddock:The House may be glad to know, after the long speech we have just heard, that I do not intend to detain Members for very long. In that way, perhaps, I may be able to balance things up a bit for the benefit of later speakers. Frankly, I regret that it has been thought necessary to publish this White Paper and to hold this Debate at the present time, and I am appalled at the tone of the speeches we have heard. It seems that this House is of the opinion that we must face, in the not very distant future, another world war. That will send through the people of this country a shudder of horror. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), in a most interesting speech on the technicalities of this question, ended, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) has just ended, with

  809
  the suggestion that if we are to prevent war, it is necessary for nations to be fully armed, and well prepared. That seems to be a policy of sheer despair. What is more, it is a policy that is utterly impracticable, because it is a method which has been used by country after country, from generation to generation, and has never succeeded. It cannot succeed, because more than one nation can play that game.
  Further, the suggestion implies that it is possible to he so heavily armed that you can frighten all other nations from attempting armed aggression. Well, the experience of mankind through the ages has proved the absolute impracticability and impossibility of that proposal. I regret this White Paper and this Debate because the United Nations are now commencing their deliberations in New York. I should have thought that the last thing any country would do would be to cast doubts on that organisation The speeches which have been made, and the general conception of this Debate, cast doubts on the possibility of the success of the efforts of that organisation. That organisation may not succeed, but the matter we are debating today is not so urgent that it could not have been put off for a few months, so that the meetings in America could be held under the best possible conditions.
  We call this a "Central Defence Organisation," but surely that deceives nobody. Everybody in this country and certainly foreign Governments know that the best defence, if you are going to have war, is offence; and this is, in fact, a central attacking organisation and not a Central Defence Organisation. I contend that is not justified, immediately after six years of war, when the nations of the world appear to be making a real endeavour to agree. It suggests no method of defence in actual fact. Throughout the White Paper, there is no suggestion of how the people of this country can be defended under war conditions. In fact, it suggests just the opposite. It mentions, in one of its paragraphs, home security. If it is to be a real defence, the object of home security should be to secure the defence of the people of this island. In paragraph 33 we have this statement:
  "In any future war the problems of home security will assume an importance even greater than that which they had in the last war. It is essential that in military prepara-
  810
  tions full weight should be given to the probable demands of the home security services."
  That paragraph leaves the essential basic need of security in the hands of civil Ministries, which means, by implication, that we are only to have so far as the defence of this country is concerned an "ambulance service." There is, by this implication, no possible defence, and if we cannot defend our people, the whole proposal for a defence organisation is utterly meaningless. I suggest that, in the face of modern offensive weapons, it is a fact that the people of this country cannot be defended.
  That brings us to the basic problem: Is it not necessary, this being the case, that we should put the whole of our effort into making the United Nations organisation a success? What has the report before us to say on this subject. I thought, at first, that it was not mentioned at all, but in paragraph 35 we find these words—and this is the only case in the whole document where this matter is mentioned:
  "We must be ready to play our part in any measures of collective defence which may be organised under the aegis of the United Nations."
  That is all that is said on this all-important subject. Matters of Imperial defence and all sorts of technical details are enlarged upon, but no word is said, beyond the few words which I have read out, about this central matter—and the only method by which this country can be defended—the action of a great international organisation. I suggest that unless we organise a defence organisation in cooperation with other nations in the United Nations organisation, defence is impossible, and the present proposals put forward in the White Paper are a cruel and dangerous jest at the expense of the people of this country.
  The party which I support in this House issued a paper at the General Election entitled "Let us Face the Future," and in that paper this statement was made:
  "No domestic policy … can succeed in a world still frightened by war. … Political and military insecurity are enemies of peace. … We must join. … with all others in forming an International Organisation capable of keeping the peace in the years, to come"
  I suggest that there is no alternative to that proposal. All these suggestions with regard to building up a military organisation in this country—committees

  811
  of defence, association with our Dominions and Colonies—must fail in the face of modern conditions. I suggest that it is up to the Government of this country to push on with the only safe method, the only method that will achieve the safety of the people of this country in the face of all opposition, and throw on one side all those outworn suggestions that we can protect the people of this country and our native land by heavy armaments, and thereby frighten the peoples of other countries. That has failed in the past; it will fail more disastrously in the face of scientific armaments and death dealing instruments, such as the world is conscious of at the present time.
  4.47 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke:The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) is, I believe, an architect. It would seem to me that, at the present time, he would be of very great service to the Ministry of Health, because I think that he has successfully shown us how to build a roof without a house. I suggest to him that, if he is so anxious to make the United Nations organisation a success, it is important that we should first get the foundations right. I had hoped that it would have been possible to say this Debate has been marked by the great unanimity shown on both sides of the House in applauding the Government's decision and recommendations in this White Paper. That may be possible, but I am sorry that that unanimity has been marred by the speech which we have just heard. I was hoping that we would be able to forget that there are still six hon. Members of this House who on 17th March, 1927, voted for the total abolition of the Air Force. I thought that we had forgotten all that, and were going forward, realising that this White Paper is but a part of a far greater scheme. It is a part, I think, of the building of the United Nations organisation on sounder foundations than those of the old League of Nations. We hope that one day it will give to some world organisation the strength to carry out what it really wants to do. I believe that that is where the hon. Member for Mitcham has made his fundamental mistake.
  What I particularly want to speak about is a matter already raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) and the hon. and gallant
  812
  Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). I am strongly in agreement with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool, and I would like to support his suggestion for setting up a secretariat as a nucleus for a possible combined Empire defence programme. I think that, as we stand today, there is no need to worry unduly about the relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and each Dominion separately. I believe that we have further to strengthen the tie which binds one Dominion to another, and that, I think, is where we are prone to be found wanting at the time of testing. During the war, the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool and I met, in similar circumstances, the Australians, and to a lesser extent the New Zealanders. I believe that what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool said about nomenclature was very true. I very well remember hearing a senior ranking Australian officer object to the use of the word "Imperial," and say that he would much prefer the word "British." I think it is very important to realise that there is no question of its being thought in any way, undignified or inferior to admit that one is proud to associate oneself with somebody who stands for the same principles. If we forget that for one moment, we shall do great harm to the cause of uniting the Empire and maintaining our Imperial strength. I hope we shall not worry too much about names; I feel sure that no hon. Member on this side of the House will worry too much about names. Far more important than the name is what one stands for. I am convinced that therein lies the whole weakness of Imperial defence at the present time. It is what we try to stand for, and how solid a front we present, to any threats we are likely to encounter.
  I do not believe we are quite keeping pace with the times. We are living in a new age. At the moment it is called the atomic age, but it may change. It is moving very fast. The one real criticism I have of the White Paper is the comparative complacency of the quotation which is made on page II. It was well summed up by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool when he said that the British Empire has won two wars, but has failed to prevent either. I think there is a lack of realisation of that in the White Paper. Unless we realise

  813
  that a future war will perhaps demand, if we know the righteousness of our cause, that we should take action first, I do not believe that our defence will be based on a sound organisation. The weapons of war today move far too fast, the distances which they cover are far too great, and their effect is far too great, for us to await the arrival of war before we do anything about it. We have to be prepared in two ways. The White Paper deals only with one of the ways. It coordinates, or tries to coordinate, our defence, but there is a further job to do, which I will simply mention, and not deal with in any detail. We have to keep our people and the peoples of the Empire convinced of the righteousness of our cause, and that is perhaps more difficult than the actual problem of defence itself.
  I shall not say anything more about the Imperial side, because that was amply covered by my two hon. and gallant Friends, but I would like to say a few things about the constitution of the Defence Committee and the Ministry of Defence. I agree with the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) that we are as minnows in the pool, and are by no means big fishes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton spoke as an expert on the subject, but I speak only with a slight knowledge. It seems to me, however, that the question of the membership of the Chancellor is enormously important. If the Chancellor—to use a gunnery term—is to be in a position to fire a financial "stonk" into the defences, then we must make sure that we shall have something more than a rather distant soft-toned sledge hammer or mechanical press from the Minister of Supply. What I am a little frightened of in the proposed set-up is as the Prime Minister said yesterday that so much depends upon the personalities concerned. I do not want to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time, whether in peace or in war, having it all his own way.
  I do not want the Chancellor's voice to drown the voice of the Minister of Supply, because both are equally important when it comes to defence, and if there were a preference in importance, it ought to be on the side of the Minister of Supply. Therefore, we must be very careful in making the Chancellor of the Exchequer a full member of the Defence Committee. I see no more reason for having the Chancellor a member of the Defence
  814
  Committee than having all the Chiefs of Staff on it. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that it would be fatal to have the Chiefs of Staff as full members of the Defence Committee; they must be kept completely free to give the true military view without consideration of politics. I would say that the same thing applies to finances; but I see what the difficulty is. The difficulty is that this country is always trying very quickly to turn back from war to peace. It has done so time and again, and very often it has done so too quickly. I am not at all sure that it is not doing it too quickly now. Throughout the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) there was emphasis on the phrase "at this time". Again and again, he asked whether something was wise "at this time." The danger today is that we are trying to things too quickly. Let us be quite sure that the emergency is over before we leave the war footing of the Defence Committee and our whole set-up for the coordination of defence.
  There is one other important thing which has not been mentioned in this Debate so far. A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave us the names of the members of the Economic Advisory Committee for the Colonies, and when I asked him a supplementary question as to whether or not they were to consider the matter of defence, his reply was in the negative. That seemed to me to be a most astonishing statement. I quite appreciate that the Council is composed of very able men, but, surely, they are men who are a great deal too busy in other walks of life to do all that the Council should do. I believe that we have in that Council the nucleus of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool had in mind in regard to dispersal. I quite recognise that we cannot simply lift industries and take them somewhere else; but duplication, as far as possible, and the building up of certain stores which are absolutely vital in wartime in widely dispersed places, may be one way of going about the job. Even if that were done, we would not achieve everything that we would like to achieve to prepare us for another catastrophe, should it come.
  Surely, these problems are absolutely vital. They are problems which demand

  815
  the devoted and completely separate attention of experts in the matter of industrial production in wartime. I can but feel that an enormous opportunity is being wasted by this Economic Advisory Council not being given any terms of reference with regard to defence. If ever there was a time when there was some hope of attaining a concerted Imperial plan for industry in the event of another catastrophe, it is now. Surely the Economic Advisory Council is very well suited to carry out that job?
  May I say a few words about liaison officers? Having been one myself during the war I have listened with interest to what has been said about them yesterday and this afternoon. The saying of our chief instructor when I was being trained has been ringing in my ears throughout yesterday and today. It is, "You will remember that a liaison officer is not a commissioned D.R." In case the right hon. Gentleman does not understand, a "D.R." is a despatch rider. There is a great deal of truth in that remark because I am quite sure that the efficacy of liaison officers depends upon two factors: one, the man himself, the other the way in which he is used. How well his job is carried out and how effective he may be depend entirely upon the instructions given to him originally and those he receives at his intermediate destination. I believe we want a great many liaison officers in the set-up mentioned in the White Paper, because the danger is that if we have only one who is a real expert, he will have to go back and report sometimes to the country of his origin, which means a hiatus unless we ensure continuity.
  In conclusion, if we are to have regional organisation of defence, has it yet been visualised that this regional organisation, which will surely take in the Colonies, will in any way take from the shoulders of His Majesty's Government some of the responsibility of Colonial defence? Under the White Paper as it stands today His Majesty's Government have the first responsibility for Colonial defence. Is that still to apply in the event of a regional organisation being set up? Secondly, will there be in each regional organisation some link with the Ministry of Defence, whether by liaison officers, a sub-committee, or whatever it may be? I hope I shall have an answer to these questions from the Minister whan he replies because I believe
  816
  it is important that we should set this idea of a regional defence organisation going very soon. The longer we wait, the less effective it will be, and in a time of re-orientation it is in any case so much better to have complete reorientation than to achieve it piecemeal and spread it over several years. I hope this White Paper will set our peace on a sound foundation. I believe it has the elements necessary for doing so, and I think the Government are fortunate in having found for the job the man who now holds it. I believe he will do it well, and I am sorry he is not here to hear me say so. He has done this country a great service in the war, and I wish him great luck in the future.
  5.5 p.m.
  Major Vernon:I find myself in general agreement this afternoon with the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) but I am not quite sure that I agree with him in deploring the fact that the subject of this Debate should have been brought forward at this time. Before giving my reasons for that I should like to make a few remarks about some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) spoke earlier of the United Nations organisation being strengthened and its power increased by the growing efficiency of the British Services. When we think of it seriously, we have in the United Nations organisation all the big Powers, all the middle-sized Powers, and almost all the little Powers—in fact, there is hardly anyone left outside. To imagine all the big Powers having to attain their maximum efficiency for the sake of dealing with Chinese pirates or the warlike tribes on the North-West frontier of India, seems to me to be entirely absurd, and the idea of the United Nations needing vast forces completely erroneous. If we sent them a detachment of the Metropolitan Police that might well be sufficient for the situations with which they may have to deal. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) concluded his speech by quoting the words of a famous Roman general who said about 1,500 years ago that to ensure peace you must prepare for war. Ever since then, people have been preparing for war, with greater or lesser efficiency, and always having the wars, so that it does not seem to be a very enlightening sort of quotation to use.
  Commander Maitland:Did Abyssinia prepare for war?
  Major Vernon:She got one anyhow. But the Abyssinians are a traditionally warlike people, some of the fiercest and most efficient in North Africa, and they achieved great success against the Italians in the past. The general story throughout history has been one of intensive preparations for war leading up to the wars themselves. I think the other idea that with the absence of the weapons and the provocation which weapons give there is a greater chance of peace is much more reasonable. The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) emphasised the importance of the dispersal of industry and the allocation of manpower. Thinking of the British Empire, the manpower in it and its allocation, the biggest quantity is in India. Regarding Japan as being put out of action—and we should be very foolish if we ever allowed Japan to rise again to power—and considering that poor China has shown no signs of being a menace, what can be done in the direction of allocating the manpower of India for any useful warlike purpose? India has an enemy, which is famine, and if the manpower can be directed against that real enemy there would be some sense in it. As for allocating it far some other warlike purpose, that seems to me to be nonsense. Another controllable collection of manpower is to be found in the native workers in the mines of Africa. But if, instead of digging gold out of the ground, they were allocated for same other and warlike purpose, the whole economy of South Africa would be thrown into confusion. As to the allocation of white races, one has to get their agreement first. The Canadians have had an undefended frontier line with the United States for over 100 years, and if we were to tell them that they had to do something about allocating their manpower for a future war, we should not get very far.
  Brigadier Low:I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is being a little unfair. I agree with practically everything he has just said, but if he would remember that my premise was that wars are now world wide, he might perhaps understand a little more clearly what I have stated.
  Major Vernon:I had no intention of being unfair to the hon. and gallant Mem-
  818
  ber, and I apologise if I have read into his remarks more than he intended.
  Another point which was referred to, was the dispersal of industry. That is a very serious problem. Air bases that are held by other Powers are scattered all over the world. Then we must think of the range of modern aircraft and modern weapons like the rocket, and so on. We find also that the British Empire is peppered all round with bases. How can we disperse our war industries to those bases? I once said in this House that it was no good building up the Commons Chamber where it was before, because in another war it would certainly be destroyed again. How can we disperse it? I suggested then that we might try the Arctic regions of Canada, or alternatively Central Africa, but those places are no longer safe. Dispersal of that kind is of no use. We may say, "Let us disperse Birmingham to the Welsh mountains," but even if we did so, we could not save it. You might put Sheffield into the Hebrides, but it would not be safe there. That kind of dispersal now has little meaning. On the other hand, if we go underground we are safe. That is the only sort of dispersal that will be of any use in the war that is to come.
  I have been very distressed to hear so much talk based on the assumption that war is at all probable in the future and that we ought, therefore, to prepare for it. Our actions in the future must depend upon the balance of probability of war or of peace. No one can be absolutely certain. The wisest course would be to act in accordance with the balance of probabilities.
  What is the balance of forces? In regard to great Powers, we have a treaty of 20 years with Russia. We have a story of 100 years of friendship, rather patchy friendship sometimes, with the United States. If we come down upon date side of expectation of war, it means that we have no faith in our Allies, and no confidence in our friends. I cannot take the time to balance all the forces or even to mention many of them, but I would like to mention two or three. What are the forces in favour of war? I think the biggest is the inertia of the military machine. Armies, navies and air forces have multiplied their strength, power and numbers in war time. They have grown in organisation. This vast machine runs on. Even now, when the need for the military machine has

  819
  gone, the machine carries on by the weight of its own inertia. That is one of the big factors on the side of war.
  Another factor on the side of war is the "back room boys" and their splendid toys. I know something about this subject. All my working life has been spent in engineering, and magnificent toys have been things with which I have dealt all the way through. I know the fascination of elaborate, delicate, beautiful and powerful machines. Now we have machines more wonderful than ever before, such as controlled missiles, which will behave almost as though they had a life and direction of their own. They can find their own way to the target. There are aeroplane engines of enormous power and of very small size which can drive aeroplanes with enormous speed. There are new fuels which will send rockets right out of the field of the earth's attraction, if we like. We can send missiles through space. All these wonderful things are developing.
  The White Paper speaks of research being co-ordinated. The mere fact that all this brain power is concentrated upon those extraordinary interesting appliances is a force in itself. One country does it, then another country tries to outdo the first. Arms races in the past have been competitions in size and numbers. Armaments races are at present, and will be in the future, if they continue, races in quality. Another element on the side of war is the inherent conservatism of the human mind. People are so used to the idea of war and to having the fear of war in the background, that war may exist a long time beyond the period in which it served a useful purpose.
  What have we on the side of peace? If we can get far enough away from the historical process to be able to see it as a single picture, we notice from the earliest stages the constant growth of the science of combat. I imagine that in the forests one hunter would meet another and fight him for the game he had caught. Later, family fought family, clan fought clan, nation fought nation and—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young):The hon. and gallant Member is wandering from the subject, in the remarks which he is now making. He must keep to the question of the organisation for defence.
  Major Vernon:I was trying to point out that the preparations outlined in the
  820
  White Paper depend upon the probabilities of war or of peace. In favour of peace there is the fact which has been mentioned by several hon. Members that war has become worldwide. Future wars will be worldwide. When that fact is generally recognised, the other fact will be recognised also, that such war will be suicidal. Recognition of the suicidal nature of war, will be the biggest factor in preventing wars occurring.
  Now, as to the proposal to set up a Ministry of Defence, it has often happened in the past that an organism set up for a certain purpose has changed its function as the need to do so has arisen. I am hopeful of the Ministry of Defence ceasing to be an organisation for improving the efficiency of the Armed Forces, and coming to be an organism for contracting the Armed Forces, and gradually preparing for their entire disappearance. I prefer to think of the Minister of Defence rather as the undertaker for the Armed Forces, and just as a funeral is better if there is one undertaker than it would be if there were three, so it is better that the three fighting Services should be co-ordinated in this way. On the whole, the Motion is to be welcomed, but in the spirit that the Ministry of Defence as an oragnisation will find its usefulness ultimately in its own destruction.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay:We have just listened to a speech which was obviously sincere, but I am sure that if I endeavoured to follow the line of argument taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) you, Sir, would be after me at once. We might have the United Nations Charter under debate this afternoon, and not plans for defence, to judge from the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member. I propose to come down to something more sordid and detailed. I shall deal with a point in the White Paper with which I am in complete disagreement and urge with the utmost strength, in the few minutes at my disposal, the addition of one Minister to the already large Defence Committee. The argument has been submitted once or twice that the Defence Committee is too large. That is a point upon which I am not qualified to decide but it is incredible that the Minister of Transport has been omitted from its present constitution. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton)

  821
  touched on that subject yesterday. The importance of shipping to this whole defence picture has been mentioned by a number of speakers and I make no apology for returning to the subject and concentrating on it. I am absolutely convinced that the transport problem is at the heart of every single thought which will go through the minds of the Defence Minister and the other Members of the Committee in their deliberations in the years to come.
  Let us look at the present composition of the Defence Committee. The Chiefs of Staff and the Service Ministers can make the most perfect strategic and tactical plans, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can fork out the cash, the Minister of Labour can allocate man-power, the Minister of Supply can provide the most abundant flow of tanks, guns and modern equipment, and the Lord President of the Council can produce whatever Lords President of the Council do produce when they are not engaged in private warfare with the Press or ex-Prime Ministers. But neither individually nor collectively can any one of them produce the slightest impact on the enemy, without making use of the roads, the railways, the ports, the harbours and above all the merchant fleet, not only of the United Kingdom but of the Dominions—if they are with us, as they will be, in any future war—the merchant fleets of some of the neutrals, if we can get on to them quickly enough, and, I sincerely hope, the merchant fleets of some Allies.
  The Prime Minister in his opening speech said that there were four headings under which a unified defence policy has to be considered—first, strategy and planning; second, correlation of production problems; third, research and development and the apportionment of resources; and fourth, inter-Service collaboration. As to the first of those headings, is it possible for anyone to make any effective long-term strategic plan if he fails to consider the road and rail movement of men and stores to the ports of this country? Must not constant consideration be given to the capacity of the ports to berth ships of every kind needed to move forces and stores abroad, and to the suitability of port equipment? All this must come before we leave home at all.
  Once embarked, the problem becomes infinitely more complex. Such matters as
  822
  these caused immense difficulties in the last war. These matters are remembered now but may be forgotten as the years go on. There are the problems of water and stores for ships. Ships have to use unusual ports in war. They may have to use ports and harbours which in peacetime handle only one or two ships a month. Such little used ports may suddenly find themselves the focal points of immense concentrations of shipping. The question of port capacity may have to be considered, not only in relation to British possessions or the Commonwealth, but in relation to other countries. It must be remembered, too, that port equipment abroad is even more important than port equipment at home. Anyone who had any contact during the war with the West African and the Red Sea problems will remember just how much delay was caused in West Africa by, among other things, shortage of water boats, and in the Red Sea of heavy lifts—a disastrous shortage. We could not get the heavy cranes which were required to lift from the ships the equipment sent from the United States. That was one of the most fruitful sources of serious loss of shipping time for about 12 months. I could go on giving details of this sort, but I must not do so because of the limited time at my disposal.
  I come now to the most important consideration, which is the availability of tonnage. I am still on the theme that these are main considerations which must be in the minds of all planners at every stage, in peacetime as well as wartime. Passenger ships are relatively a simple problem. On the outbreak of war, normal civilian movement about the world ceases, and passenger ships belonging to this country and any Allied countries become available for war purposes. There are delays over conversion, but passenger ships are a relatively simple problem, compared with cargo ships, the problem in relation to which is immensely complex. The Admiralty, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, will be in hot pursuit of the Minister of Transport for fleet trains—and the ideas of admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty on the size of fleet trains are very big, particularly if the Fleet has to go a long way off. The War Office will be worrying to see how it can get its men and stores abroad, and the Air Ministry will have similar require-

  823
  ments. The Minister of Food will be worrying about foodstuffs. The Minister of Supply will be worrying about raw materials. Every Ministry in the Government has some interest in shipping. At the outbreak of war, shipping must inevitably be a bottleneck, and that may continue for some time. Two wars should have taught us that lesson, if we did not know it from our own good common sense. Surely it must be realised at every stage of strategic planning that failure to understand the full implication of transport problems may absolutely wreck any plan. A mistake in shipping calculations may not only make the generals' plan useless, but may be positively dangerous. One might launch a couple of operations based on certain assumptions as to the availability of cargo shipping. If they are launched, and the Ministry of Transport has been brought into the picture too late, and gives an appreciation on inadequate knowledge and a mistake occurs, this country will be starved or, much more likely, the operations will have to be cut off half way through, in order to divert shipping to keep raw materials and food coming into this country.
  I could go through the Prime Minister's four headings, but I content myself by touching on that of the correlation of production problems. Here, again, the Minister of Transport must be involved. What is the use of the War Office and the Minister of Supply working out a plan for a most beautiful large tank only to find, when they come to ship the tanks abroad, that the turrets are three inches too high to be loaded on the average cargo ship?. We know that happened. The Minister of Transport must be in constant touch with the Minister of Supply, the War Office and the Admiralty on the whole question of design of heavy equipment. Another point is that consideration must be given throughout the whole production scheme to the simplest, cheapest and most effective form of containers to convey war stores abroad. It took three years of war to get motor transport broken down—that is the technical term—to go into a Beta-pack, as a result of which three or four times as many vehicles could be loaded in a cargo ship. If the Minister of Transport were intimately connected with the workings of the Defence Committee on the production side from the very outset, such mistakes might be avoided.
  824
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot suggested that all this might be dealt with by the Minister of Transport coming on to some permanent committee. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) had something to say on this subject and though I agree with what he said as a whole, I think one has to go further than he went. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) brought up the question of unprepared merchant ships. His was a good speech and I could not agree more than I do with what he said, that we must never allow our merchant ships again to go into war so completely undefended against the enemy as they did in the early stages of the last war. He also said that was a matter for the Minister of Defence to consider. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) proposed a Ministerial transport committee, on which the Ministers of Transport and Civil Aviation should be represented. I suggest that none of these is adequate. Surely, the importance of all this is such that, if you are to have an organisation of the size of the present Defence Committee, the Minister of Transport must be on it?
  It will be argued that it is not really necessary. I expect to be told that he will not always be interested in a lot of the subjects under consideration and that he will be consulted when required and his Department will be on the various sub-committees. I submit that is not good enough. If the Minister of Transport is any good at all, he will be a major nuisance. He will be for ever saying, "Steady on, boys, you are going too fast." The Minister of Transport will be the man who will ask, "Where are you getting your resources of merchant ships for all these plans?" The tendency will undoubtedly be for the Minister of Transport to become rather unpopular with his colleagues on the Defence Committee if he is doing his job. In the past I think the right hon. Gentleman himself had some fairly good tussles with the Minister of Transport—
  Mr. A. V. Alexander:Very successful ones.
  Mr. Maclay:I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that they were only successful because the Minister of Transport was a strong man. He was, at one and the same time, battling against all

  825
  the other demanders of tonnage and holding up his end. Probably the right hon. Gentleman did not get it all his own way.
  Mr. Alexander:I meant successful only from the point of view of what the country needed.
  Mr. Maclay:I quite agree, but what the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chiefs of Staff want is not always what the country can afford at any given moment. The importance of getting the Minister of Transport in at the heart of this business is that he must understand the problems of every Minister involved—the Supply Ministers as well as the Service Ministers—and if he does not he will be bullied, or taken out to lunch, and will then find that he has over-committed himself to one or other of them. I have been on the edge of enough of this to know the appalling dangers if the shipping authorities are not really in on planning from the earliest moment possible. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of Defence will ponder this, and that the Prime Minister will recall his opening speech when he said that this would be a flexible organisation. I hope that will not mean merely that we are to be comforted by the fact that the Minister of Transport will be on a sub-committee but that his Department will be represented on various other committees.
  I am not frightened of the present. As long as directors of plans, as long as Service Ministers, as long as Chiefs of Staff are men who have had direct experience of the recent war, there is nothing of which to be afraid. Every one of them knows the vital importance of shipping representation on the Chiefs of Staff subcommittees, on the executive planning staff, and on the joint administration planning staff. They know they can do nothing really effective without the shipping representatives being there. That might be true for quite a few years, but one must visualise, in considering this White Paper, a period of prolonged peace at the end of which suddenly we might have to start the whole machine going again. It is at such a time that we might find the lessons of the recent war had been forgotten, and that the Minister of Transport was once more in the deplorable position in which the Sea Transport Division of the Board of Trade was in 1938 and 1939—really nothing much more
  826
  than the trooping department of the Service Ministries.
  May I finish by referring to a completely different subject, the question of Dominion collaboration in this whole defence question? I do so only because I have direct personal experience of the point I want to make. I sympathise with the Government in the difficulty they find in getting anything more satisfactory into this White Paper than what they have put into it on this very critical subject of collective defence. Moreover, I say this. Some of the representatives of the Dominions with whom I was connected during the war years were very critical indeed of London Ministries for their high handed attitude in dealing with the Dominions. It seems to me imperative that the Dominions themselves must come forward to this country asking for, and prepared to take a full share in this type of work, the preparation for war, both strategic and on the supply side. If my words can reach those representatives of the Dominions, I shall be most grateful, because it is no good waiting for war and then grumbling that London has taken the initiative and gone ahead. They turned out to be very great friends and allies, and we know what the Dominions did during the war bat, at certain stages, they resented the domination of London. I say, here and now, that I do not consider it was by any means all the fault of London. The Dominions should be ready by now to come and say, "We want to take our full share in the preparation for the defence of the Commonwealth" or, if one puts it a better way, "in making the Commonwealth fit to take its full share in the implementation of the United Nations Charter."
  537 p.m.
  Captain Chetwynd:I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) and I am sure he will excuse me, because no one else could have the detailed knowledge of transport and shipping which he has. I want to intervene for a few moments only to give a sense of proportion from this side to some of the remarks that have been made. I am afraid I cannot follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) in the general theme of their remarks. I cannot see any inconsistency whatever in any of our commitments

  827
  under the United Nations organisation and the fact that we want a strong defence policy of our own. Also, I cannot agree that the mere holding of this Debate means that war is one day nearer or six months nearer or six years nearer. I should have thought that any sane person would realise that we have learned the lessons of the inter-war years and, to use a cliché, that the price of peace is eternal vigilance. I look upon the proposals in this White Paper as a sane and determined effort to give us that vigilance.
  I would like to say a few words about the scope of the job of the Minister-designate of Defence. In my opinion he has to be a very strong person, and the tone of this Debate and the Debate in another place has been, how can we avoid either giving him too much power or too little power? I regard the proposals in the White Paper as a compromise between those two positions. As I see it, he has to consider this matter of defence in the light of an age of full employment, he has to battle with the other Ministries for the men he wants and for the money he wants, and it will take a very strong person to get his adequate share of those two commodities. He has also to plan his schemes in an age of the atomic bomb, and I do not think that has been sufficiently dealt with in this Debate. It means a tremendous knowledge, and cooperation with the Minister of Supply, who is in sole charge of atomic energy, to make sure that whatever benefit there is in the use of atomic energy can be applied in wartime, should that dire necessity arise. He has also to plan his defence, not in an isolated position but under our obligations to the United Nations.
  I think there he has a field of endeavour that no other Minister has had before. It rests with him to plan our commitments to the United Nations in the most effective way. He will have time to experiment, and he will have time to make a sound contribution to the United Nations organisation. But also, in my opinion, there is a counter balancing factor here, because he will have to plan in an age of what, I believe, will be lessening commitments. As the years go by, I hope we shall have taken our troops from India, and that the Egyptian position, and, I hope, the Palestine position,
  828
  will have been solved as a whole, and he will not be concerned with holding down those areas. He will be able to devote his attention to preparing an organisation for defence against possible aggressors. I conceive his most important function is to plan defence policy, to give a general supervision to strategy, and, above all, to be the kind of kingpin acting under the more remote responsibility of the Prime Minister in the Defence Committee. If we try to make him also the coordinator of the three Services, and push on to him the organisation of the medical branch in any Service, or the education branch, or whatever it is, we shall be cluttering up the prime function with these other functions.
  I do not think the time has come to try to organise out of these three Services, with their different traditions and tasks, one closely amalgamated Service. I do not think we can even go so far as the United States, and have a combined Air Force and Army. I think the new Minister will be well advised to leave the matter where it is at the moment, and try to achieve coordination through the Chiefs of Staff, to try to get the responsible heads of the three Services together, and so let them coordinate the policy rather than try to make one Service out of three.
  On first reading paragraph 33 of the White Paper, which deals with home security, I thought that it would be advisable if the home security service, air raid precautions, fire brigades, and ambulance services could be brought within the ambit of the Minister of Defence. I do not want to disparage the excellent work which was done by the home security organisation in the last war, but I thought that at times there was a conflict between the man in the Army and the man who the soldier thought was in "Civvy Street." I thought it would be desirable to put the organisation of all those people being used in the defence of the country in a total war—and, of course, the next war, if it should come, will be even more of a total war than the last, and in effect it would mean that there would be no civilians—under the Minister of Defence. But, on thinking it over, and after listening to the Prime Minister yesterday, saying that the whole question of civil defence was receiving attention. I think we should be putting an unnecessary

  829
  burden on the new Minister of Defence if, at this stage, we handed over to him the whole of civil defence.
  Another point on which I felt myself in some agreement with the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was in feeling that the Ministry of Supply could not in effect serve two masters. It could not serve peace production—lavatory seats, I think, was an example—and war production, with tanks, and guns, and so on. I think his solution was to make the Minister of Supply the head of the war service organisation, and he skated over what was to happen to peacetime production. As I see it, the most important function of the Minister of Supply at present is to concern himself with peace production. That, of course, is going to increase in the future. Possibly the best solution would be to detach from the Ministry of Supply those organisations which were concerned primarily with war production. We could, possibly, put them under a separate head, take, for instance, the royal ordnance factories, and put them on the same level as the three Service Ministeries, over which the Minister of Defence would have complete supervision. I do not want to press that point, because it would probably be far too complicated to put into effect at the present stage.
  I rather gathered from the Prime Minister's speech that the position in peacetime was that he should have a kind of remote responsibility over all affairs connected with defence, and that the Minister of Defence in peacetime should have the chief responsibility. Then, should war come along, it was quite possible, and indeed seemed most probable, that the Prime Minister would become, as well as Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence. That would probably have the effect of weakening the position of the Minister of Defence, and I see no valid objection to having the same kind of organisation in wartime as in peacetime, the Prime Minister having overriding responsibility, and, underneath him, still as Minister of Defence, the peacetime Minister. Having made those remarks, not from a very high level, or from any experienced views of Imperial defence—I have no qualifications for that—the only thing to do is to welcome the setting up of the Ministry, to welcome this White Paper, and to express the hope that it will never have to be used fully in any time of war.
  5.49 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey:I rise to give the point of view of an ex-Air Force officer on matters relating to the air as far as the White Paper is concerned. We have discussed the three fighting Services, but the situation has changed considerably in the last 10 or 15 years. I realise that during the war it was necessary for the Prime Minister to be chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I agree that it is not necessary today, because Prime Ministers of all Governments are very busy men, particularly Prime Ministers of today. The Chief of Staffs Committee, which was formed early in the twenties, is stated in the White Paper as being necessary because of the advent of the air. I would go further, and say that this Committee was brought about through the tenacity of Lord Trenchard. If it were not for this great Air Force officer, there would not have been a separate Air Force at all. I well remember when the Army and Navy were trying to split the Air Force between them. The two parts may not have been of the same size. However, attempts were made to get control of the R.A.F. But, that great officer made it absolutely impossible for that to happen, and did all he could to consolidate his Service against heavy opposition.
  The new Minister has big problems to face, and they are going to be connected with modern weapons of the air. As I see it, all we are doing in this White Paper, which I think is an excellent White Paper, is regularising the structure we had during the war, which functioned very satisfactorily. At the moment the Chiefs of Staff and the planners are functioning satisfactorily. The machinery, as it has gone on, has steadily improved. But what will be the position when Lord Montgomery and Lord Tedder retire from their present positions? Will the position be as good then as it is today? We shall have younger men coming along who have not got their prestige, or perhaps their wartime experience.
  I am afraid that the Chiefs of Staff who are coming along will have difficulty in stating their case to the Minister, because between Lord Tedder and Lord Montgomery there is some measure of team work. They were together during the war, and they brought the machinery of coordination to be just about as perfect as it could be, though there is much room for

  831
  improvement. I am sure that the Minister will do his utmost to make the fighting Forces into one Service even though the actual change will not be effected, because I do not think the time is quite right for that to take place. Will these officers be able to state their case effectively? I very much doubt it. Take the case of the late Air Minister, who was in office for 12 months. We know that for much of that time he was out of the country on service other than that of his own Ministry. We have a new under-Secretary, who, if I may say so, is doing his job well. The new Air Minister is now in America. That may be necessary, but I hope the Minister of Defence will keep his Ministers on their jobs and see that they are fully employed looking after their respective Services. If they have to go abroad, let them do so to see their troops and equipment overseas. Not sufficient of that is done at the moment.
  A thing that is worrying me is naval aspirations. I know I am on dangerous ground when presenting this point of view to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have seen it happening over a number of years, and quite recently over the allocation of airfields, particularly in Malta, where the Navy could not operate aircraft during the war, and it had to be left to the Air Force. Nevertheless, the Navy have three or four out of the five aerodromes at Malta. These questions have to be decided on the basis of strategy and an allocation which sees that the Air Force and the Army get a square deal in this matter. What will be the right hon. Gentleman's reaction when the Navy ask for Coastal Command, because that has been an aspiration of the Navy for years, and even today they are thinking quite aloud on this subject? I have heard it suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is almost web-footed after his many years of excellent work at the Admiralty. I hope that he will be guided in these matters by people who know something about the air and its possibilities. During the war the Navy virtually had operational control of Coastal Command, and if the Navy wanted flying boats to go out to intercept submarines they went at the call of the Navy, whereas in the Middle East the Air Force itself ran the coastal Air Forces. I was not in that Command, but I am told that it
  832
  was very effective under Air Force control.
  Here we have two different types of command, one at home and one in the Mediterranean, and the matter requires much consideration and regularising. I quote that particular case only because, as I see it, in a war, if Bomber Command has to support Coastal Command in carrying out operations, it would not work so well with Coastal Command belonging to the Navy rather than where it does now, to the Royal Air Force. I agree with the White Paper that it would be quite wrong to amalgamate the three Services now. We are not ready for it, and in my experience I have seen great difficulties in the American Air Corps, which comes under Army control. Eventually we may one day see our three Services wearing the same uniform, working under one chief, but at the moment I think it is better to go on as we are, intermingling the personnel more than before, so that officers and men of one Service spend some time in the other Services, thus getting to understand their point of view.
  I wish to refer to the question of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, which was touched upon yesterday. Here is a most important organisation. It is a young Ministry, and I have heard it suggested that it may fold up in a few months time, when the Minister of Transport will take it over. I hope that is not true, because if we are called upon in future to participate in a war it will be a great potential to help us out if we have these aircraft available, as Hitler had, transport aircraft available in the early stages of the war. I notice that Admiral Tovey made a statement the other day in South Africa about the closing down of the flying boat base at Durban. He said that it was a great pity, and that it has been, and would be, invaluable to us. I hope that the Minister will give the Ministry of Civil Aviation a fair hearing in matters which affect the strategy of the three Services.
  The Minister of Supply has a difficult task. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the White Paper:
  "In many respects, however, we were in 1939 dangerously unprepared for war. Qualitatively our Navy and Air Force were not badly equipped, but there were serious gaps."
  I well remember one gap which may not have been serious from the point of view

  833
  of many people. It was at the beginning of the war when I was sitting at Croydon in a Gladiator with four guns and two wings. There was no paint to cover the silver, we could not camouflage it. The Minister of Supply must coordinate all the requirements of the Services. His task in seeing that the Services are properly equipped is enormous.
  So far as the Dominions are concerned, I am told that we are willing at this end to play our part to the full, and that it is the Dominions who do not take advantage of that offer. I do not know whether that is true. I am told that it is the politicians at the other end. We should hold out an open hand to them and give them a welcome to come in as much as they wish to do so. Furthermore, we should widen their sphere of influence. For example, Australia should have a much bigger say in the affairs of the Pacific area, much more than she has ever had hitherto. Colonial defence is also concerned. I am glad to see from the White Paper that the full resources of the Colonies are to be utilised, as this Government are responsible for the defence of the Colonies. I wish to see more initiative taken in this matter, because, in places like Hong Kong, Singapore and Ceylon, millions want to help us in an emergency. We have never yet taken advantage of that. I remember, in Hong Kong, a local defence corps which numbered some 1,500 men. We did not allow the British-Chinese to wear our uniform and to help us. When war came we were in a very sad plight indeed. I beg the Minister to see that the local people in these Colonies are allowed to participate to the full in helping us out when the time comes. I trust the Government will be broadminded in all matters relating to the Colonies. I wish the new Minister and his Ministry well. I ask that he will become air minded and take that into full account when considering all his problems.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Mackay:I am very glad to have an opportunity of intervening in this Debate. I wish to deal with the last part of the White Paper. The first four parts deal with the Ministry of Defence in this country, and so hang together. Those parts are welcomed. Some Members opposite have referred to passages in Part V as complacent, which
  834
  to my mind is an understatement. It would have been much better if that part had been left out altogether. The reason is that it concerns a problem which should have been dealt with in much greater detail, and also with much greater knowledge and imagination. We have had speeches this afternoon from hon. Gentlemen opposite raising the question of the Dominions. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has said that the Dominions do not have full opportunity given to them to share in Imperial defence, or perhaps they do, but whatever the position is something should be done. Coming from one Dominion and having been in two others, I suggest that the real problem here is that hon. Gentlemen—and this applies to all parts of the House—are not facing the facts and the changes which have taken place in the development of the Commonwealth in the last 20 years.
  We have had a Debate for two days on this White Paper, one section of which deals with Commonwealth defence without any reference to the agreement between America and Canada for the creation of a Joint Defence Board or that between New Zealand and Australia for the defence of the Pacific. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) referred to this matter. He put it higher than most other hon. Members probably would put it. This sentence shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem and the failure of most people to think out this problem for themselves in the new circumstances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
  I realise that, under the Statute of Westminster, the Dominions have complete freedom of action as to whether they will or will not enter a war in which we are engaged. I submit that this complete freedom of action as to whether they shall enter a war or not in the defence of the Empire, is entirely incompatible with Imperial defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 30th October. 1946; Vol. 428 C. 653.]
  If these two things are incompatible we have either to give up Imperial defence or the freedom of the Dominions—one or the other. Will any hon. Gentleman suggest that the Dominions will give up their freedom of action? They will not, and because they will not, there can be no Imperial defence. I am not arguing that their unwillingness to give up their freedom of action is a good or bad thing; I am trying to put the position as it is.

  835
  This is the fundamental problem. There is no Imperial defence and, in fact, there never has been much. The White Paper says very clearly:
  "While all are willing to consider and adopt practical proposals for developing the existing system, it is agreed that the methods now practised are preferable to any rigid centralised machinery."
  We can have one of two things. We can have a proper federation of the British Commonwealth, and then we could have centralised machinery for defence, or we can say that there are a number of independent nations who will come together and cooperate, but then we would not have any real machinery of any kind. The Dominions would never agree to federate and will never come to an Imperial Conference willing to limit their powers. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong. I am trying to show that some of the stages in the growth of the British Commonwealth of Nations in the last 20 years make Part V of this document little better than utter rubbish. The official report of the agreement between Canada and America shows clearly the way in which Canada is thinking, and the way in which she is developing. The Agreement provides for a permanent joint Board of Defence. There is not such an arrangement between Canada and the United Kingdom or between the Dominions and the United Kingdom. It will be impossible to secure such an agreement between those bodies, because their problems are not the same. Canada thinks of her problems of defence in relation to America. She thinks of her problems in direct terms in relation to America, and she wants a centralised defence machinery not with Great Britain, but with the United States. The agreement provides:
  "This permanent Joint Board shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material"
  The agreement was made on 18th August, 1940, and is now in operation.
  In relation to Australia and New Zealand the same problem arises. I do not suggest for one moment that the Dominions have any complaint in regard to general Imperial defence. If one looks at the history of the matter before this war, one can see how little, in the main, the Dominions were willing to contribute
  836
  to the defence of the Empire. The failure of Australia to contribute to the defence of Singapore is, of course, the best example of what I mean. But they are very conscious of their own defence problems and, while in a world war they will give help (a) to the Mother Country, and (b) to other countries on the same side, they are not a bit interested in the Mediterranean and Europe. They do not want to take part in any Imperial defence machinery. They have already entered into an agreement between themselves which has been ratified by both Parliaments. This agreement, which was made in 1944, provides in Article 13 that the two Governments agree within the framework of a general system of world security—not within the framework of any Imperial defence or upon some machinery acting upon the advice of an Imperial Conference for the defence of the Empire but within a framework of a general system of world security—that a regional zone of defence comprising the South-West and South-East Pacific areas shall be established.
  I think an hon. Member suggested that in this matter we should have an Imperial secretariat. That is exactly what the agreement provides between those two Dominions for defence in the Pacific, and that is what they will create. They are not prepared to come into a similar organisation with this country, and for the Empire or the Commonwealth as a whole, because they realise, as it is about time hon. Gentlemen in this House and people in all parts of our Dominions should realise, that the British Commonwealth, if it is to be a world-wide organisation, is too big for its own defence and cannot defend itself. For this little island with 48 million people to have borne the brunt of this defence in the 19th century when sea power was all that mattered, may have been possible. It is completely ridiculous and out of line with the resources of the country to suggest that we can go on trying to think that either in the air, on the sea or on the land this island is sufficiently strong in manpower and materials to carry on the defence of a world-wide organisation such as the British Commonwealth. That is why I ask hon. Members to realise that the whole tendency in the Empire today is along different lines. The present attitude is not to look to Empire defence at all but

  837
  to look to the United Nations organisation. As a realist, I certainly would not argue that we could sit down and say that we need not bother about our defence but that we will do just what the United Nations organisation tells us to do and that will be adequate. I do not put my case as high as that. All I say is that the British Commonwealth is a world wide organisation, and because it is a world wide organisation it is too big for the United Kingdom to defend it. It may be said that the Commonwealth could defend itself if all the members would agree to federate—which they will not—because then we would get the power necessary to provide for all the different defence matters which are raised in the White Paper and have been discussed during this Debate.
  We have to face this problem. If we are to have five or six British nations all standing alone as independent Sovereign States in different parts of the world they have to build their own defences in relation to their individual problems with one another or with other countries. Australia and New Zealand are not interested in the defence of the Atlantic; even Canada will not be interested in the defence of Europe. Australia and New Zealand think in terms of the Pacific.
  That is what they are doing at present and what they have done ever since the war with Japan. I would like to develop this subject further at great length if I had more time at my disposal, but I will put only one further consideration to hon. Members. Hon. Members will recall that some years ago the then British Ambassador in Washington made a speech in which he advocated for the Commonwealth—and I am taking his words:
  "A common policy in foreign policy, defence economic affairs, Colonial questions and communications."
  In reply to this suggestion, Mr. Mackenzie King, for Canada, said:
  "I maintain that apart from all questions as to how the common policy is to be reached and enforced, such a conception runs counter to the establishment of effective world security and, therefore, is opposed to the true interests of the Commonwealth itself."
  I would like to read the whole of the passage but that is sufficient to bear out the point. Mr. Mackenzie King put it in a polite way. He said if we were to have a common policy, that would conflict with their obligations to the United Nations as
  838
  a whole. It is clear from the attitude adopted—which is a right one from their point of view—that he was telling the world that in Canada they look to the United States for their defence because their problems are associated with the United States and, therefore, they are not willing to enter into defence commitments of the Commonwealth as a whole. Australia and New Zealand are taking exactly the same line. They know perfectly well that the United Kingdom was unable to defend them in 1942 because she was otherwise engaged.
  They do not blame the United Kingdom for that. They know they are to blame for not being prepared, as most members of the British Commonwealth were to blame for a similar reason. They also say that they are not interested any more in defence problems which involve them in other parts of the world, but they will build up around the United Nations, or will work up a defence system in their own area. I ask that, at some stage, the further consideration of the Government should be given to this matter.
  We have to defend these islands, and the twentieth century is going to see the Government of Britain withdrawing from their commitments abroad, and, when they have withdrawn, we shall think of defence in terms of Great Britain only and of Great Britain's part as a member of U.N.O., and not as the centre of an Empire. I have not the time to touch on the Colonial aspect, but I ask hon. Members to face the implications of the things they have been saying. If they talk about Imperial defence, they must either bring the Dominions together into one political organisation, or realise that they cannot do so and allow each Dominion to go its own way in setting up its own system of defence. I wish that a great part of the White Paper could be brought up to date in this way, and that hon. Members would realise the significance in the history of the Commonwealth of the Canadian-American defence agreement and of the agreement between Australia and New Zealand for their own defence.
  6.12 p.m.
  Commander Maitland:I hope the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his most interesting but rather provocative speech, because I want

  839
  to deal with another part of the White Paper. Neither do I propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), though there are some points raised by him which I feel I might go on to argue at some length. It is very difficult for anyone who has only served a year in this Parliament not to speak with a great sense of temerity on an occasion such as this. We only saw the pieces of the great jigsaw puzzle which made the war, and, in this House today, are many hon. Members on both sides who saw the whole and managed to succeed in putting it together. Therefore, my remarks are essentially tentative and meant to help.
  I propose to speak on only two points. The first is a minor point, but sufficiently important, and I think, the second very important. Throughout the Debate, great interest has been shown in the suggestion in the White Paper, of amalgamation between the Services at some future date. I am not in a position to be able to say whether the time is ripe now or not. I only know that, in all the Services, the matter is being discussed with very great interest by the personnel of the Services themselves. I think that something should be done at once gradually to produce amalgamation and to make the duties which the Services perform more interchangeable. It should be started now because, during the war, the Services achieved a far greater measure of mutual understanding than we had ever had before and the reason for that was because we were driven into it by the force of circumstances. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a tendency to break away after a war, and for each Service to go on their own hooks. I remember only too well the rather sordid arguments that went on between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force about the question of the Fleet Air Arm after the last war, and, if hon. Members want another example from the field of foreign affairs, they have only to remember how the ties between great Allies, who were bound together by what Kipling called "the bond of common funk," are very quickly loosening. I think that, if we are going to have any amalgamation, we ought to do something now, so that we should not lose the good position we are in through the force majeure of
  840
  the war, which has drawn the Services closer together.
  I suggest that a good way of forwarding these principles would be to allow officers of the three Services to serve as executives in the other Services for a period of two years at some rather junior period of their service. I believe it would work. I am only speaking from the naval point of view, but I feel it would help in two ways. First, it would give the senior officers of the Services a far better understanding of the other Services than they can possibly achieve from staff courses, and, secondly, and this is not an unimportant point, these officers would pick up the best tricks of the trade from all the Services and amalgamate them into their own, which would largely assist the amalgamation. I leave that point there, because it strays rather away from the White Paper itself.
  That brings me to the second point, which I regard as the most important problem with which we are faced today, and that is the correct distribution of manpower. I think that, if there was one lesson which we learned during the war, it was that of the vital importance of the distribution of manpower and of getting the correct balance. I fully understand that this matter is appreciated in the White Paper, and, in the Prime Minister's excellent expositon yesterday, he also underlined, in various ways, how much he realised its importance, but I am not sure whether the weight does not sometimes come in the wrong place. For example, in the White Paper, in paragraph 27, we are told:
  "The new organisation must be such as to ensure that the resources available for defence are laid out to the best advantage in terms of manpower, weapons and equipment," etc
  and then we go a little further on to find:
  "The Chiefs of Staff will advise the Defence Committee on our strategic requirements from year to year. It will then be for the Service Departments to translate these requirements into terms of men, money and supplies."
  I believe that that is putting the cart before the horse. I think that the problem of manpower is the basis of all strategy, and that on it depends the major strategy which we are going to employ, the type of weapons we are going to try to produce or the types of ships. These points were dealt with by the hon. Mem-

  841
  ber for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) in a very important speech, in which he said that strategy was bound up basically with these questions. Anybody who has ever had to make a plan knows that it is most important to know the things one cannot do, and the weapons one cannot use. It is almost as important to know this as to see clearly the objectives which one must attain. That is why I think the discussion of manpower is really more important than even the White Paper or the speech of the Prime Minister indicates.
  The Minister of Labour is a member of the Defence Committee. We talk of the right hon. Gentleman in this House as Minister of Labour, but we must not forget—and many of us have forgotten—that he is the Minister of Labour and National Service. I think that there is something in the name, and I would like to see him called Minister of National Service and Labour, because I think this business of national service transcends his other duties. In the minds of most of us, I think that the qualifications for a Minister of Labour—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner):As the hon. and gallant Member knows, he has already deviated a good deal from the White Paper, and I do not think that he can now go into the qualifications for a Minister of Labour.
  Commander Maitland:I apologise. I was trying to say that, during this Debate, there has been a general tendency to try to choose some member of the Defence Committee whose name is detailed on the White Paper, and to choose him as a leviathan, or a whale, or some other great beast. My fear is that it may be the Minister of Labour who really is that great animal, although I must point out that this is in no way an attack on the right hon. Gentleman who so gallantly held that post during the war.
  This is really a very serious problem. We talk about the concept of total war. It is not just a matter for lip service; it is a very terrible fact. Total war needs total handling. I have a horrible thought that there is something about this White Paper that makes it look a magnificent organisation for the war of 1939. The key to total planning is manpower. In conclusion, I would like to quote Lord Montgomery, who made a very good speech the other day in which he stressed the development of mechanical and
  842
  scientific warfare. He said that still, above all else, man counts. Of course, he was right. I would like to say to the Government today that I think their first duty is to count their men.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Zilliacus:I should like to comment a little on Part V of the White Paper in very much the same spirit as did my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay). As various speakers in the Debate have observed, the term "collective defence" in the White Paper is used as a coy term for Commonwealth or Empire defence. On the question of Commonwealth or Empire defence, I found myself yesterday, somewhat to my own surprise, in complete agreement with an observation that fell from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). Agreement with him on my part is such a rare phenomenon—perhaps a unique phenomenon; I hope not, but I fear it may be so—that it is worth quoting his words with which I fervently agree. He said, speaking of Imperial defence:
  "The burden on the British taxpayer is immense. It is more than the British taxpayer can bear. It we continued to bear this immense cost there are only two alternatives—to reduce the standard of living of the people of this country, or to reduce the defence forces required for Empire security throughout the world …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT Wednesday 30th October, 1946; Vol. 428, C. 653.]
  However, I thought that his remedy for this situation was illusory. It was a remedy that was echoed in various tones throughout the Debate, mostly by hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull has already commented sufficiently on the proposal that the Dominions should, somehow, be obliged or compelled to play a full part in organising, jointly with us, the defence of the Empire. The thing is not practical politics; they just will not do it.
  There are other strange illusions on this subject. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), when opening the Debate for the Opposition yesterday, criticise the failure of the White Paper to provide sufficiently for Dominion cooperation on the ground that, as he said,
  " … the great striking force of naval power is chiefly in the hands of the people of this country …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Wednesday, 30th October, 1946; Vol. 428, c. 636.]

  843
  Surely, it cannot be a fact concealed from this House that, since this war, the United States have a Navy greater than all the other Navies of the world combined, including our own. Nor, surely, can the fact be unknown that air power has largely outclassed naval power. If we do not know these things, the Dominions do. Australia and New Zealand cannot forget the fact that they had to rely, primarily, on the United States to defend them in the last war, through no fault of our own, but because it was impossible for us to defend them singlehanded. The Prime Minister of Australia commented on this fact when he returned from the Empire Conference last spring, which is mentioned in the White Paper.
  We have the very highest authority for the view that it is impossible for us to defend the Empire singlehanded. On 18th February, 1937, an important Member of this House said:
  "… if you are really trying in this policy to arm this country on a unilateral defence basis, and suggesting that we can vote the money and organise to defend the British Empire, all that I say is that you are exceedingly foolish. You have never fought a major war yet without allies, and powerful allies, and you have no hope of defending the whole of the far-flung stretches of the British Commonwealth with unilateral defence. "[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday, 18th February, 1937; Vol. 320; C. 1411 and 1412.]
  The author of that statement was my right hon. Friend who is to be the Minister of National Defence. I think that what he said then was entirely true. The White Paper mentions further regional associations for common defence and seems to interpret that as meaning the association of the Dominions with the Mother Country. In their treaty, Australia and New Zealand contemplate a regional association embracing, not only the Mother Country and other Dominions, but also the United States and other Pacific countries, such as France and the Netherlands. The Canadian treaty of alliance with the United States has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull.
  After the Empire Conference, which is mentioned in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the White Paper, Mr. Mackenzie King made a declaration to the Press to the effect that Canada could not agree to terms of association between the members of the Commonwealth that were exclusive, but
  844
  would only cooperate on terms that would permit other like-minded nations to participate. The Canadian Press put their own construction on that by saying that the whole conception of Empire and Commonwealth defence was out of date, and that it must be included in something larger, something centring on the United States. During his recent visit to the United States, Lord Montgomery talked about the possibility of standardising military equipment between this country and the United States. General Eisenhower's visit here must have some significance in that connection. The Anglo-American Joint Chief of Staffs Committee has not yet been dissolved.
  In fact, what is happening is that while we are talking about Empire and Commonwealth defence, a series of de facto military arrangements are growing up between the Commonwealth and Empire, on the one hand, and the United States on the other. If history shows anything, it is that one cannot enter into military, naval or air agreements, however technical or limited their quality, without those agreements carrying with them political commitments and obligations. Whereas "collective defence" means "Empire defence," Empire defence is, in practice, coming to mean the formation of an Anglo-American bloc under American leadership, treating the U.N.O. as so much thin air and building up a balance of power against the U.S.S.R. That development is regarded by some of us with a great deal of apprehension for, as Henry Wallace has just said, the United States appear to be acting on the supposition of war with the U.S.S.R
  Collective defence should be made really to mean the collective organisation and maintenance of international law and order on the basis of the Charter and in cooperation with other States, and should not be allowed to mean either a back-breaking attempt at single-handed Empire defence or a drifting into an unavowed Anglo-American power bloc run by Uncle Sam. In its first four chapters the White Paper outlines an admirable central organisation. That is a thing for which hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have pressed for a great many years. I would like to join in the satisfaction which has been expressed on both sides of the House at having achieved this goal, and I would like humbly and sin-

  845
  cerely to add my congratulations to those of other hon. Gentlemen at the appointment of my right hon. Friend. No better man could have been found for that responsible post. In paragraph 21 the White Paper relates its own specific proposals to what it calls questions of high policy in the sphere of defence. I would welcome some sign that this policy on the highest level in the sphere of defence and in the related sphere of foreign policy really exists, that we have a policy which looks to the organisation of peace on the basis of the United Nations, and is not content to let things drift as they are drifting now. Our defence organisation resembles a pithed frog. A pithed frog can hop about in the most lively fashion, but its brain does not function and, therefore, it cannot adjust itself to the changing environment and soon expires. I hope in our defence organisation that the questions of high defence policy, which are the collective responsibility of the Government, will really be dealt with in a modern 1946 international fashion, on the basis of the Charter, and will not simply be guided by the reflex actions of the "brass hats."
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Molson:Perhaps the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) will pardon me if I do not follow his speech. I notice that the Treasury Bench are usually able to provide any reply which is necessary to the hon. Member for Gateshead, and, therefore, in the few moments in which I mean to speak, I will refer to one concrete and practical point to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman, whom I would like to congratulate upon his appointment, will direct his attention. I want to speak about what in the past has been anti-aircraft defence and what, perhaps, in the future might be called anti-aerial defence. In all the branches of warfare there is none where development has been more rapid and revolutionary than in that sphere. There was no anti-aircraft defence before 1911. It was developed very rapidly and to a high state of efficiency between 1914 and 1918, and then it was redeveloped between 1935 and 1945.
  One of the pecularities of this kind of defence is that it is almost impossible for the defence to anticipate what the next form of aerial attack will be. It has been the difficulty of anti-aircraft defence
  846
  always to have to try to overtake the initiative of the attacker. In the case of the last war, by the time we had developed a technique for dealing with piloted aircraft those attacks upon this country had ceased. They were then followed by unpiloted aircraft and it was, I think, the great achievement of Anti-Aircraft Command, and especially of Sir Frederick Pile, that that battle was, in fact, won. But hardly had it been won before the rocket attacks upon this country started, and down to the end of the war anti-aircraft defence had no reply to the rocket. Taking the case of searchlights first, we were always behind the attack. In the early stages, there were no effective means of guiding the searchlight on to the rapidly moving aircraft which were produced by the time the war started, and when "Elsie," as it was generally called, controlled by radar, was perfected—and it was, indeed, perfected—those attacks upon this country had come to an end.
  What one is anxious to know—perhaps it is not necessary to know, but one is anxious that the Defence Ministry should apply their minds to this—is whether there will be scope for searchlights in anti-aerial defence in the next war. This is essentially a matter which falls between the Army and the Air Force, and I am coming on to the question of the special responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman must bear in dealing with this new form of attack. I will pass over the more technical points, and I will come to the question of organisation in the last war. There was a most unfortunate division of control of anti-aircraft defences between the Army and the Royal Air Force. Anti-Aircraft Command was trained and administered by the Army, and it was under the operational control of the Royal Air Force. That resulted in certain very unfortunate consequences. There was, in fact, a complete separation between Anti-Aircraft Command and the field force. It is generally known that in the Army, Anti-Aircraft Command was referred to as "Tim Pile's private Army". It is the case that in matters of training and technique, and "A" matters—that is, the transfer of personnel, and so on—there was very little difference between the two, and the field force were very unwilling to accept the cooperation, which, I think, was offered by Anti-Aircraft Command. As an example, the num-

  847
  ber of searchlight units was being rapidly expanded by the Army at the time that Air-Vice Marshal Leigh Mallory had decided not to use searchlights against the enemy aircraft which were invading this country. This is the kind of problem with which I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is to be the Minister of Defence will concern himself for the future. It was, perhaps, to the great advantage of Sir Frederick Pile's "private Army" that he was the first soldier who fully appreciated the immense importance of scientific research. In Professor Blackett he had a scientific adviser for the development of anti-aircraft defences, who was afterwards, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, taken on by the Admiralty to advise them on similar matters.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander:Navy trained.
  Mr. Molson:He was Navy trained, and returned ultimately to the Army. It is a little disconcerting that the right hon. Gentleman is still so keen to prove how the Admiralty has always been the most progressive of the Services. Brigadier Schonland, who had organised the scientific research for Anti-Aircraft Command, was taken on by the War Office and was the head of the Army operational research. I hope that, when he comes to reply, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to ensure that the scientific research which is needed now for the three Departments will be given very high priority by his new Department, that there will be the fullest cooperation in obtaining the best men, and also in making the results of their work available to all three Services.
  This division that occurred was, of course, due in the first place to the fact that anti-aircraft defence is, to a large extent, military, and it would be most unfortunate if the artillery officer were not in future trained for anti-aircraft defence as well as for field work. It is also a fact that the actual defence must be closely integrated with the Royal Air Force. It is essential for anti-aircraft defence to be closely connected with the Army and closely connected with the Royal Air Force. Therefore, I hope this will be one of the subjects which will come especially under the control of the right hon. Gentleman. These anti-aircraft problems are not only those of war; they are problems of peace also. During the
  848
  100 years of peace, between 1814 and 1914, the coastal defences of this country were, to a greater or less extent, manned. In the 20th century it will be equally necessary for the anti-aircraft or anti-aerial defences of this country to be manned to a greater or less extent. It is an immensely difficult problem. The great moral difficulty of Anti-Aircraft Command was the monotony from which the men suffered, even in time of war when they were required to maintain vigilance. The problem will be even more difficult in time of peace. Something will have to be done to ensure that the anti-aerial defences are in some degree maintained in time of peace; and that is one of the most difficult responsibilities which the right hon. Gentleman will have to undertake.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Blackburn:I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who spoke about anti-aircraft defences, did not mention the name of the man who deserves the greatest credit of all for the fact that our air defences of Great Britain reached such a high peak of efficiency, namely, Sir Henry Tizard, who is to be appointed, as we are informed by the Prime Minister, scientific adviser to the Defence Minister. I hope the Defence Minister will make it clear that he will call Sir Henry Tizard into his meetings on all possible occasions. Personally, I would desire Sir Henry Tizard to be just as much a normal member of the group which the Minister consults as the Chiefs of Staff concerned.
  In the White Paper, lip service is paid to the closest integration of science and military planning. But one is conscious of the fact, as the Prime Minister underlined, that while it is very easy to have official phraseology it is a very different matter in practice to find the necessary personalities who will work smoothly together, so that what appears on paper becomes a reality. We heard a speech from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) which was in unusually conciliatory language. It nevertheless contained a proposition which I would like to refute, namely, that we are, in some way, engaged in some kind of Commonwealth bloc with the United States of America directed against Russia. That is the purest nonsense. I do not believe

  849
  there is anybody in this House who has the slightest desire, in any circumstances whatever, to get involved in a war with the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Zilliacus:My hon. Friend must not put words or imputations into my mouth which were foreign to my thoughts. I never suggested that any one in this country—or for that matter the great mass of the people in the United States—wanted war with the Soviet Union. I said we were drifting into that position, owing to lack of a policy.
  Mr. Blackburn:I listened very carefully to the words the hon. Member used, and the hon. Member did suggest that the bloc was directed against the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Zilliacus:It is.
  Mr. Blackburn:Those were his exact words. If the hon. Member desires to withdraw them, I will accept his withdrawal. The hon. Member has said far worse things than that on other occasions. I consider that this, if I may say so, with great respect, is due to his courage. However, I have dealt with him sufficiently in making that comment.
  We had a number of suggestions earlier from hon. Members opposite to the effect that it is desirable that there should be the closest consultation between the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. I find that a little astonishing; I find it a little peculiar that hon. Gentlemen opposite should, on the one hand, say that we on this side are the harbingers of the slave State, and on the other hand desire themselves to be brought into the closest possible consultation with my right hon. Friends. I only desire to add a few more sentences on this subject, because it has been raised by at least five hon. Members opposite. I put this point to my right hon. Friend. I think—and I speak with nothing but the greatest admiration for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have a very great and sincere personal admiration—it would be disastrous if the world had the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was being taken into the councils of His Majesty's Government. Only last week, on Wednesday, he surmised that there were 200 Soviet divisions in certain quarters of Europe. On Friday
  850
  he announced it, as a fact, that there were 200 divisions in this area. This week, once again it has become a surmise. If His Majesty's Government are to be in any way involved in vacillations of that kind, on a matter fundamentally important to the whole world, it seems to me it would be dangerous.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor:Surely the Government should know how many divisions the Russians have there? My right hon. Friend was asking for information, because it is a matter of the utmost importance.
  Mr. Blackburn:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads "The Times" today he will find the statement there that we refuse to give the Soviet Union or to the world, the details of our military dispositions.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor:It does not follow that they do not know what those dispositions are.
  Mr. Blackburn:Can it therefore be suggested for one moment that His Majesty's Government are in a position to give accurate information about the military dispositions of foreign Powers? In any event, I leave that point where it is. I desired to come down to the fundamentals of the White Paper. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, that what matters here is not so much what we may think in the House of Commons—what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite may think, or what I may think. That is not the issue in this case. The issue is what people in Western Europe will chink, and what people in the United States of America will think. There is an impression among certain people—perhaps ill-informed people-that there is some measure of collaboration between the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench on matters of foreign policy. I hope that will be denied and then the whole doctrine of continuity of foreign policy will be whittled.
  I turn to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) about the Ministry of Supply. I think there is some substance in the point he made, that it is not desirable that the Minister of Supply should have such an enormous range to deal with as the Minister of Supply now

  851
  has. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned lavatory seats. The matter is not quite as simple as that. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot is not in his place, but he knows perfectly well that it is not so simple. The reason lavatory seats are supplied by the Minister of Supply is because lavatory seats are part of the aluminium house; the reason the aluminium house is supplied is because the aluminium house is a prefabricated house, and the machinery which produced bombers, was necessarily the same machinery which was most suitable to produce prefabricated houses. Therefore, I submit—and I hope the Minister without Portfolio will deal with the point—that the Minister of Supply ought not merely to deal with the production of warlike stores but also with all branches of peacetime production necessary to keep the war potential itself alive, bright and moving. It would be the grossest folly for the House to assume that a line could be drawn between military research and development on the one hand, and industrial research and development on the other.
  The jet-propelled aircraft is an immediate illustration which probably will have greater importance industrially than militarily. It is perfectly obvious, putting it broadly, that the problem here is that of the nationalisation of scientific research and development in general. In fact, one can never be certain whether a particular invention will be useful solely for military purposes, or solely for civilian purposes. Therefore, this ought to be linked up with the proposals which I believe are now maturing for a national research development fund, which will also ensure the proper development of scientific discoveries in all fields. May I give one final test to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence on this matter? Air-Commodore Whittle was convinced in 1931 that he could produce jet-propelled aircraft; but it was not until 1936, five years afterwards, that he was able to get the great sum of money necessary to develop jet-propelled aircraft. It is quite undeniable that, but for the advent of the war, jet-propelled aircraft would not have been developed, though obviously they are equally useful for industrial and military purposes. I suggest to the Minister without Portfolio it would be a very good test to adopt in relation
  852
  to these scientific matters to ask himself this question: "If a similar inventor were to arrive two years from now, and he came to my organisation, would I take the necessary steps to see that his invention was developed, or would there be the same failure to develop it as there was in the circumstances of the preceding case?"
  I turn to another matter, the subject of Commonwealth defence. I think it a little unfortunate that more stress has not been laid upon the need for scientific liaison. There is, in fact, in Washington a remarkable development. There is a British Commonwealth scientific mission where Australian, New Zealand, British, Canadian and other scientists are working together in the closest cooperation and are doing all they can to get what information is available for the benefit of their Governments. I very much hope that, at some stage, it may be strengthened by the creation of a British Commonwealth Scientific Office, to be responsible not merely to the British Government, but to the British Commonwealth as a whole, and paid for by the British Commonwealth as a whole. I feel certain that if we see that development in the near future it will yield valuable results. I hope we shall have Commonwealth missions in other parts of the world. In Moscow, there is only one scientific liaison officer, and he represents Australia. I hope we shall have scientific liaison officers in many capitals.
  I should like to make one further observation, in a spirit of some levity. When I listen to hon. Members opposite—the younger ones and those who sit on the Front Bench—I am sometimes tempted to wonder which are the younger in their ideas. We have heard a good deal of talk about Imperial defence. Surely, it must be perfectly plain to all that we cannot, on the one hand, be annoyed when Mr. Henry Wallace accuses us of Imperialism, and, on the other, talk of Imperial defence. On the contrary, we ought not to talk about the British Empire. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I think, who was responsible for coining a far better phrase, "British Commonwealth and Empire." We hope, on these benches, that in 10, 15, or 20 years from now the last two words, "and Empire," will be eliminated from that title. Let us speak in terms of Commonweath defence, and not in terms of Imperial defence.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor:Why does the hon. Member object to the term "British Empire"? It is something of which most of us are extremely proud.
  Mr. Blackburn:I am not objecting to the term "British Empire." I am saying that the view is held on these Benches—and, I think, by many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by the right hon. Gentleman-that we do not regard the British Empire as being in the same position today as in the past. We now believe in the concept of self-government; and, surely, it is perfectly plain that if we are prepared to allow self-government to India, and yet hope that India will remain within the security framework of the Commonwealth—which is the most important subject, as I see it, in the present Indian negotiations—we must be logical and go further, and talk about "Commonwealth and Empire," but look forward to the elimination later on of the words "and Empire." Having listened to many speeches in this Debate, I am bound to say that the impression any unprejudiced observer would have is that hon. Members opposite—even, perhaps, some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite—still have their minds centred on the kind of ideas that had currency a hundred years ago. We can no longer think in terms, and it would be stupid for us to think in terms, of Imperial defence based on the British Isles, for the simple reason, if there is no other, and as was pointed out by an hon. Member, that the British Isles themselves are going to become indefensible.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak talked about searchlights, but I cannot understand how searchlights can have any relevance to the situation today. We only just succeeded in picking up rockets on radar at the end, and it is confirmed on the very highest authority, as the Minister of Supply knows, that aircraft are likely to be more used for defensive, as well as offensive, purposes in five to ten years' time. That is the situation we occupy today, and it is essential that we should now plan Commonwealth defence, so far as we are able. The whole future of the British way of life depends on that. It is essential that we should broaden our defence conceptions; and, above all, we must no longer put before the Americans and the people of Western Europe the idea that we regard this island as essen-
  854
  tially the capital country of the British Commonwealth and Empire. I should like to see the capital not always located in London, but shifted periodically to Sydney or Ottawa and elsewhere. The hon. and gallant Member opposite laughs. But does he know the logical consequences of his laughter?
  Brigadier Head:If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I was laughing at the idea of trying to shift all the communications and all the establishments of Whitehall, which the Members of his party are making very much bigger, to Sydney. It struck me as being highly impracticable.
  Mr. Blackburn:The hon. and gallant Member does not appreciate that London, in addition to being the capital of the British Isles, happens to be the residence of His Majesty. My suggestion would merely involve the transference of the official head of the British Commonwealth to another part of the Commonwealth, and it would involve having conferences in that other country itself. I am sorry however that I got into this altercation with the hon. and gallant Member.
  A great deal has been said about the advance of science and of the effect of the advance of science on warfare. It was admitted by an hon. Member opposite that dispersion is necessary but difficult. The British Isles themselves could not be less vulnerable than either the Soviet Union or the United States of America. We must look forward to the creation of such a worldwide Commonwealth system, that nations will not think that, merely by destroying London or by destroying part of Britain, it will be possible to eradicate the influence of the British Commonwealth, or to reduce it from being anything but what it is—a great world power, which can and will, I hope, exercise a magnanimous influence on world events.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Digby:The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the argument he has put forward. Nevertheless, I shall be interested to hear, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, whether he is to consider renaming the Defence Committee the Commonwealth Defence Committee or not.

  855
  I should like to make it clear straight away that, in general, I am much in favour of the proposals of the White Paper. It has three very obvious advantages which have been fully dwelt upon already. It preserves the Chiefs of Staff system more or less intact; it gives a senior Minister overriding responsibility for defence, which has been lacking before; and, thirdly, it gives the right hon. Gentleman opposite a better job, which we all feel he deserves.
  I should like to say a word or two about the disadvantages, not from the higher level from which they have tended to be looked at so far, but from a slightly lower level, the G2 or G3 level; because it is very easy to forget, when we talk about Service Ministries, that they are not composed entirely of generals, admirals and air-marshals.
  First, I should like to say a word about the question of coordination, which, I understand, is going to be carried out by the Defence Minister. We want to know a little more about how the thing will work. It does not seem to be entirely a question of coordination at the top. I cannot believe that it is really as simple as that, because, after all, when matters have got to the high level of the Chiefs of Staff or Ministers, they have a great deal of work behind them. In each of the Service Ministries there are a number of staff officers, each of whom is charged with some particular aspect of policy, and it is the coordination of those views which forms the briefs given to the Chiefs of Staff. One of the things which has been most sadly lacking in the past and in the last war has been contact between the lower grade staff officers of the various Ministries. They have been in watertight compartments to a surprising degree. Each of the three Ministries has been organised on lines of its own, and the result has been that most officers have not known at all who were their opposite numbers in the other Ministries, or if they have known, they have seen very little of them. I hope that the Minister of Defence will remember that, if there is to be increased coordination between the three Services, it is absolutely essential that it should go a little lower down than it has done in the past. A way must be found of allowing the junior staff officers to work very much more closely together than they have done in the past.
  856
  We have also been told or led to believe that in addition to coordination the Defence Ministry will undertake a certain amount of originating. It is not very easy to see from the White Paper exactly what is meant by that, and I very much hope that we shall be given a little more on this subject when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply. What kind of imitative will he take? Will he just ask for reports on specific subjects or will he go further than that? Will there be any form of general direction? I hope he will be able to tell us more about that when he comes to reply.
  These proposals, which are very good as far as they go, fail, I think, to go far enough to remove some of the defects which many of us have thought we saw in the machine as it works at present. It is impossible to deny that in the last war there was a very great deal of duplication between one Service Department and another. For instance, in the field of intelligence, there is no doubt at all that the same piece of intelligence was being worked upon by a great number of people many of whom never met each other, and I hope some form of rationalisation will be introduced there. Again, turning to the sphere of supply, we find that the War Office and the Air Ministry had each its own supply department. On the other hand, I believe I am right in saying that the Admiralty placed its orders direct. That does not seem to me to be a logical set-up. In the last war, especially in the earlier stages, it resulted, as we know, in a number of competing priorities, so that when a factory was tooled up for the production of something for the War Office, a higher priority came along from the Admiralty, and a great deal of time was lost. I hope that some way will be found of making sure that that kind of thing does not happen again, and that the organisation in each of the three Service Departments will be made to resemble that in the others very much more closely than is the case at present.
  Now I should like to say a word about the Defence Committee, which was described by Lord Esher, who was really its father, as "the coping stone of the whole edifice." He used these words in a letter to Lord Balfour in 1903, and he used them again on many occasions. Undoubtedly, in his mind it was the most important of all the reforms that were

  857
  undertaken at that time. His view of it, however, was that it was a committee for "purposes of preparation and not action", and he went on to say that it had "no executive function." I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that the present conception will be rather different, and I should like to know just how far that will be the case. How far is it to be an instrument of preparation, and to what extent has it become executive?
  With regard to its size, I, like a number of other hon. Members, am very disappointed that it is to be so large. The Prime Minister told us that he believed that the Cabinet should be as small as possible, and I think that is right, but I cannot see why the same argument does not apply to the Defence Committee, because as I read the White Paper the intention is to enlarge it. Even without the enlargement there would be II people present, which is quite a lot, and with the addition of the Lord President, the Chancellor, and the Minister of Labour the number is brought up to 14. That seems to be an additional argument for leaving out the Chancellor and the Lord President, because I have a horrible feeling that if so many Ministers are put on the Defence Committee the civilian element will become unduly strong, with the result that there will be a tendency for arguments there to be repeated almost word for word in the Cabinet, because almost every Member of the Cabinet who is concerned with these questions will already have gone through them at the Defence Committee.
  That brings me to another point I should like to make which I do not think has been made yet. Although I welcome the fact that the Services are to have one powerful spokesman in the Cabinet, I do not quite like the idea that the Service representation in the Cabinet has been cut down to one-third. It has been reduced very much, which is placing a very severe burden on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman. He alone will speak in the Cabinet for the Services, except when there are special occasions which call for one Service Minister or another to be present; and we must note in passing that the Minister of Supply will not be there either, so that as regards Service questions the right hon. Gentleman will be alone in the Cabinet and a very heavy responsibility will, therefore, fall upon
  858
  him. I very much hope that he will be able to make his voice heard as loudly as if there were three people, as has previously been the case. I am all for a small Cabinet and for the kind of grouping system which was advocated by Haldane. This is a beginning in the direction of a smaller Cabinet on those lines, and I should like to make it clear again that I welcome that. I think, however, that it has begun at the wrong place, and that in a Cabinet of the size of the present one, which is still extremely large, it is insufficient to have only one Service representative. If he were indisposed there would be nobody there at all to represent the Services.
  Finally, I should like to say that I welcome these proposals but I feel that we should remember that they are only a nibble at a very great problem. They have stuck to what has been proved in the war, and that is right, but it may be necessary to go further. I hope that in the course of his duties, in which we wish him all success, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, and will remember that further reforms may be necessary to bring the three fighting Services closer together.
  7.10 p.m.
  Flight-Lieutenant Crawley:I shall detain the House for only about five minutes. I had intended to say something on the well-flogged horse of collective or Imperial defence, but all I wanted to say was said so much better by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. Mackay) that I will leave it to him. The only point which I want to take up was mentioned by the hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby), that of the organisation of intelligence. It is a subject which is very difficult to speak about in this House, and one must speak of it only in general terms. Obviously, if the right hon. Gentleman who is to become Minister of Defence is to be responsible for general questions of strategy on the highest plane, much of his thinking will depend on the intelligence with which he is supplied. Intelligence comes from various sources which are responsible to different Departments, and I know that in peacetime they are responsible to many non-military Departments. I suggest for my right hon. Friend's consideration that what can rightly be called intelligence is a matter of defence, whether in peace or war. I think it is obvious if one looks at it.

  859
  In peacetime, when we carry on good relations with a foreign country, information is easily obtained from numerous sources. It is in the areas of the world where our relations are not intimate that information of a factual kind is not easy to come by, and that is where the word "intelligence" has more meaning. The real responsibility for direction of intelligence at the highest level should be with the Minister of Defence. It is very difficult to argue this case without giving instances, but I suggest that at the beginning of the war there was a great deal of misinformation, a good deal of friction and great delay in the accumulation of information. Tremendous improvements were made during the war, and the Joint Intelligence Bureau and the Higher Intelligence Committee worked extremely smoothly; I know that they worked very well at the highest level at the end of the war. I suggest that there are still delays in coordination, which is the main business of intelligence work, both in coming up through the organisation and in going down. By "coming up," I mean delays because there is too little coordination at the various lower levels, and, therefore, it takes much longer to get facts coordinated and sifted than if it was done lower down. Secondly, the return of information from units in the field and other sources through the highest levels where it is coordinated is very often too slow. I am sure that hon. Members could give innumerable instances where valuable information was not used because it arrived too late. I press the Minister to consider this question seriously with a view to revising the whole of the chain of responsibility of our intelligence organisation, not in the administrative departmental fields, but at the highest levels.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Eden:The Government have been generous in their allocation of time for this Debate. They have given us two whole days, but I do not think they have been overgenerous, because it is a subject of immense significance, and it is important that Members in all parts of the House should have a full opportunity to express their views. The House will agree, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that we have had good speeches
  860
  in this Debate from all parts of the House. It is perhaps invidious to single out any of them, but certainly among those I have heard to which I would make reference were the speeches made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), and the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Chetwynd).
  There is, I think, broad agreement on the basis of the scheme. That is not in dispute. The Prime Minister, as he mentioned in his speech, was good enough to consult some of us about these proposals, and therefore any comments and suggestions which I shall make in the few minutes I propose to detain the House. are, I need hardly assure the right hon. Gentleman, intended in a constructive spirit. The right hon. Gentleman has had a great many good wishes during these two days. I do not think I ever recollect an occasion when, in so long a Debate, so many good wishes were extended to a Minister in His Majesty's present Government, and I doubt whether it is likely to happen again in the near future. We wish the right hon. Gentleman success. We know that he has his heart in this work, as he had his heart in the work he did at the Admiralty, and we are confident that his tenure of office will be as distinguished in this sphere as it was in the Admiralty. He is going to find it awfully difficult to forget his present sphere; I have watched him struggling at times during the Debate, but I hope his self-discipline will duly be imposed.
  The right hon. Gentleman has an immensely responsible task. We live in a rapidly changing world. It is essential that we should keep abreast of these changes, both in thought and action, and that will be the right hon. Gentleman's main task. The rapid development of weapons during the recent war, and especially in its later phases, has already been referred to. It has already shifted to some extent the basis not only of tactics, but of strategy—in particular, the growing importance which weapons of long-range action have assumed, and I include under this heading the long-range bomber, whatever projectiles the long-range bomber may drop, the remote controlled projectiles, the V-1 and V-2, to

  861
  say nothing of the later forms of these weapons which, for aught I know, have been developed since we ceased to be in office. The growing importance of these weapons must inevitably affect the respective functions of the three fighting Services, and in particular the role of the Air Force; their relation to naval and ground strategy would appear still to be changing and likely to increase yet further in importance.
  The reflection I would leave on the House, in this connection, is that the new Minister will be confronted with conditions which may be expected to change at a rate greater than anything we have known hitherto, and it will be his task and the task of the Defence Committee, not only to keep us abreast of these changes and of all the consequent developments in research and equipment, but to ensure that the implications of these changes receive full weight in the apportionment of resources to the three Services, and the roles allotted to those Services. I think I have carried the right hon. Gentleman that far. I would add this warning to the House. In conditions of war, the changes and the consequence of changes are constantly visible to all our eyes. The dread process of war illuminates every development. On the other hand, in times of peace the significance of changes which may be every bit as far reaching as those that take place in war may, indeed, be over-looked, with fatal consequences. So, vigilance in this sphere is the special task of the right hon. Gentleman and the Defence Committee.
  With these thoughts in mind—and I hope the Government agree with me thus far—I want to come to the question of the composition of the Defence Committee, about which a good deal has been said in this Debate. I do not want to be dogmatic about it, but I notice that the Prime Minister himself said that the scheme of membership was tentative. I must reiterate, however, the doubts which I have heard expressed from more than one quarter of the House as to whether it is really necessary or wise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a permanent member of a Defence Committee. I need hardly say that there is nothing personal in this; if you like I will say, "a Chancellor of the Exchequer," and not, "the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Briefly, I will say why. First,
  862
  the tasks which are enumerated for defence, and the allocation of the available resources between the Services to give effect to that, is not properly, I suggest, the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The conception of treating defence as a whole, which is implicit in this White Paper, means that the allocation of the available resources so that they may be used to the best purpose by the Services, should be arrived at on purely defence considerations, in which Treasury considerations have no part at all. That, as I see it, is the responsibility of the Defence Committee as advised by the Chiefs of Staff. I should, therefore, have thought that the Chancellor—whose importance I by no means seek to minimise—should have been brought in at a later stage.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman may say that it is important to carry the Treasury with him, that they should understand what the problems of defence are, and that they can only understand that if they are in the Defence Committee. I would beware of that argument. The right hon. Gentleman may not be the only little Red Riding Hood to be gobbled up by the Treasury wolf, and I think he would be wise if, at the stage where he is entirely concerned with the allocation of resources for defence, and not in relation to allocation of our general national income, he would confine himself to those who are directly concerned with the problem. The Chancellor's responsibility should come in where it should—in relation to all expenditure. Why the Chancellor should be included, and the Minister of Transport not included, I cannot understand. I ask the House to note that it has been proposed that the Minister of Transport should be a permanent member of the Defence Committee. I do not suggest that myself, because I think it is important to keep the Committee small, but he should be a Minister who can be summoned, as Lord Leathers was frequently summoned to our discussions during the war. I cannot conceive why the Chancellor should be more intimately connected with the work of the Defence Committee than the Minister of Transport.
  As for the Dominions Secretary, what the Prime Minister said about his position should go far to meet some of the criticisms which were uttered in another place. It has to be remembered—and nobody knows this better than the Prime Minister

  863
  who once held that office—that the Dominions Secretary has special contacts with the High Commissioners. During the war, these were daily contacts. It is essential that he should have sufficient knowledge of the work of the Defence Committee, in so far as it affects any of the Dominions, to enable him to make those contacts with the High Commissioners as useful as possible. That should suffice, and I myself would not urge that the Dominions Secretary should be a permanent member of the Defence Committee, again, because it is so essential to keep the number small. The number always has a tendency to swell, in any event.
  This brings me to the arrangement for defence coordination with the Dominions, which are alluded to at the end of the White Paper, and about which a great deal has been said in the Debate. I do not think that any of us are really happy about a system which rests on liaison officers alone. We are all aware of the limitations of liaison officers. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not mind me saying that, in spite of his own distinguished war record in that capacity. They are the means of transmission of information, but they are not meant to be, and cannot be, a satisfactory channel for consultation. What is needed is something to bridge the gap between the work which these liaison officers can do and those consultations at the highest level, the Ministerial level, which inevitably must be rare in the circumstances of geography, and the many calls on Ministers in their own countries. I take the same encouragement as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton)—I hope, not wrongly—from paragraph 39 of the White Paper, which I read to mean that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom hope it will be possible to find something to bridge this gap. The paragraph says:
  "These proposals …. will pave the way for machinery which, while giving full play to the independence of the Member States of the Commonwealth, will be effected as a means of consultation and collaboration."
  I do not think that the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) need be apprehensive about anybody on this side of the House wanting in any way to take away the independence of the Dominions. There cannot be anybody in the House
  864
  so foolish as to suggest anything of that kind. It is a question of what machinery you can create between States which are absolutely equal.
  Mr. Blackburn:Then does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the use of the word "Imperial" is to be deprecated?
  Mr. Eden:Perhaps I do not get worked up about these words as I should. I have heard the word "Empire" used in many parts of the British Commonwealth, by spokesmen of all parties. I rather favour the term which was coined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—"The British Commonwealth and Empire." That should satisfy everybody.
  Now let me come back to the White Paper. In paragraph 31, which I welcome, it describes the relations of the Minister of Defence with the Chiefs of Staff. That is the most important part of the whole Paper. The value of the Chiefs of Staff organisation during the war was proved beyond challenge. What we have here—and some of my hon. Friends took part in that organisation at various levels—is only a reinforcement of what the right hon. Gentleman and my colleagues and I experienced at firsthand. I agree, in particular, with the words:
  "On all technical questions of strategy and plans it is essential that the Cabinet and Defence Committee should be able to have presented to them directly and personally the advice of the Chiefs of Staff, as the professional military advisers of the Government. Their advice to the Defence Committee or the Cabinet will not, therefore, be presented only through the Minister of Defence."
  I am sure that is right, and that the right hon. Gentleman will insist upon it. I am glad, too, that the joint staffs for strategic planning, intelligence and administrative planning are to be retained. I do not think there is any doubt that the J.I.C., in war, was an invaluable means of pooling information which reached us from various sources, whether from the Service Departments or the Foreign Office, and which thus presented to the Defence Committee and Chiefs of Staff a planned appreciation, based on all the sources of information which were available to us. It is well known that that machinery was not available in the last war, and I think that it would have been very helpful to us if it had been.

  865
  One point was raised about the Colonial Economic Advisory Committee. We understood the other day from the Colonial Secretary, that that Committee was not to be brought into the work of the defence organisation. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the facts? The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) raised the question of the functions performed by the Minister of Economic Warfare during the war. As I understand the position from this White Paper—and I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us if we are right—these functions, which I agree are very important, will become part of the responsibility of what is now to be called the Joint Intelligence Bureau, which was the Joint Intelligence Committee. I would like to know if that is so.
  Paragraph 30 of the White Paper lays down the Minister's task in relation to the administration of inter-Service organisations. That is a very important issue to which I would call the attention of the House. I have no criticism myself to offer that the Minister will assume control of these various organisations; I think that he has to do so if they are to retain their inter-Service character, and that they should be on his Vote. But I think that I ought to utter a word of warning. Looking at this White Paper, I have tried to make a little calculation. Besides being the responsible Minister for the J.I.C. and inter-Service organisations which I have mentioned, he is also to be Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee, Chairman of the Administrative Committee and Chairman of the Production Committee. He will have under him the joint staffs of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and be responsible for the Joint War Production staff, the Defence Research Policy Committee and the consultative committees of the principal personnel and supply officers. That has become a very alarming list. What I fear for the right hon. Gentleman is the danger that he will tend to be entangled in all sorts of administrative detail, and will not have the time to stand back and view the large issues of strategy and defence, which should be his chief responsibility. I would say to him that he should watch that tendency most closely. He must have time to think, and, if he is going to carry out all these duties, he will not have time to think. There will be a tendency, as those who know Government Departments are
  866
  aware, when there is some difficulty to put it on the desk of the Minister of Defence. That is what he has to watch.
  Several Members in this Debate have said how incongruous it is that, so soon after the end of a war which has resulted in the elimination of the military power of our particular enemies, and almost eliminated them from the list of nations for the time being, we should be discussing, in this way, the organisation of our defence. I do not think that it is really so strange. I found the speeches of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) and the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) very strange indeed. They seemed to think that we should be upsetting the work of U.N.O. I cannot follow that reasoning at all. If it were known to the world that we had scrapped all our defence policies, I doubt whether, in present conditions, we should be making a very great contribution to peace. On the contrary, I should say that in this we were fulfilling the terms of the Charter by which we are instructed to work out arrangements for regional defence. Article 53 says:
  "The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilise such regional arrangements."
  Whether arrangements of this kind within the Commonwealth and British Empire can be termed regional or not may be arguable, but no one can dispute that what we are now doing is in close harmony with U.N.O.
  One hon. Member went so far as to say that this was not a Central Defence Organisation, but a central attacking organisation. I do not think that anyone can really think that. There is a great safeguard against central attacking organisations in this country, and that is the complete liberty and freedom of the people to read the views of other nations and to express their own. That is a tremendous safeguard. One will not see a democracy which so conducts itself indulging in an aggressive war. That is impossible.
  I wish the right hon. Gentleman good fortune. I happened on Sunday to find this passage in Gibbon, which I will leave with the right hon. Gentleman. Describing the consequences of the discovery of gunpowder, which is reminiscent of what the hon. Member for King's Norton was telling us about the atomic bomb, Gibbon wrote:
  "If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery with the slow and

  867
  laborious advance of reason, science and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind."
  I fear that at the present moment, so far as atomic energy is concerned, the philosopher is more likely to weep than to laugh. My hope is that the right hon. Gentleman, through his organisation, will take a constructive step, so that we may succeed, where Gibbon records we failed in the case of gunpowder, in harnessing this energy for the benefit of mankind.
  7.38 p.m.
  The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. A. V. Alexander):I should like to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the very friendly reception given to the Command Paper on the Central Organisation for Defence. A certain amount of criticism, mostly constructive, like that of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), has been offered, with which I will try to deal.
  The Prime Minister and I both appreciate that the thoughtful and almost unanimous welcome given to the main structure of the defence organisation which we propose indicates that the House has not forgotten all the lessons which it has learned in the last ten years and will support the Government in seeking to secure the greatest efficiency in the Defence and Supply Services. While we continue to labour unceasingly to establish the effectiveness of the United Nations Organisation in the settling of disputes and in maintaining the peace of the world, we must not in any case return to that condition of unpreparedness which is described in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the White Paper.
  In view of the nature of the Debate, I felt, last night, thinking it all over, that a would be best, in the first place, to deal with some of the detailed comments and criticisms.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who opened for the Opposition yesterday, made, I think, a helpful speech, and I am very grateful for his kindly personal references. He referred to the proposed composition of the Defence Committee and questioned, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has done, the inclusion of a number of Ministers proposed by the Prime Minister—the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of
  868
  Labour. I would remind the House, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, that when the present Prime Minister was Lord President of the Council in the War Cabinet, he was also a member of the Defence Committee, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Coalition Government, I think, and certainly in the later years of the war, almost invariably attended the Defence Committee.— [Interruption. ] —That is my very sincere recollection, but I will check it again. I prepared my notes late last night out of my head, but that is my recollection. In face of the growing problems of manpower as the war lengthened, the Minister of Labour—now the Foreign Secretary—was a regular member of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot will further study our postwar position, I think he may agree that the inclusion of these three Ministers is justified.
  We have to organise our defences now in the light of the overwhelming necessity of restoring our national economy, and failure to restore our national economy would make much of our defence organisation completely nugatory. The first essential to national defence is to get back to something like a healthy national economy. The Lord President of the Council is in general charge of our economic activities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is equally concerned not only with financial policy, but with all the various branches of industry, which he has to help by all means possible, and which will all be part of the war potential in the kind of preparation we have to make for war of a kind that we might have to anticipate if we are not able to maintain peace. The Minister of Labour is also the Minister of National Service, and, in view of the very great difficulties about manpower, has also to be included. It has been suggested that all these Ministers could be consulted at a later stage, but it is, in our view, fundamental that they should be in at the consideration by the Defence Committee of the Service Departments' proposals at an early stage, a procedure which will not only save time and also much waste of labour, but will make it easier for the Defence Committee to take definite decisions within the sphere of responsibility entrusted to it by the Cabinet.
  While, of course, because of the helpful way in which the Debate has been con-

  869
  ducted, we shall carefully look at the suggestions which have been made, I do not at present see that there is any great necessity to make any change. With regard to the suggestions that have been made about other Ministers, the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) referred to the experience of the Minister of Transport during the recent war, and the struggles I used to have at the Admiralty with Lord Leathers. They were always very friendly struggles, and, believe me, the Minister of Transport was not always in the right, although anyone with the hon. Gentleman's family name would certainly think he would be; but we shall endeavour, in all these matters, to see that there is proper consultation on all occasions with the Minister of Transport. But what is fundamental is that we should continue to have that interlocking of the problems at the staff level, such as we had during the war. I think it was a member of the hon. Gentleman's own family who was constantly rendering me, as well as the Minister of Transport, such very great services. I shall certainly seek that kind of cooperative spirit in trying to facilitate the planning of the future.
  Mr. Maclay:I said in my speech that I had no fears of any kind about the immediate future. Can we be certain that 20 or 25 years from now, if we are still threatened with war, there will be a Minister of Defence who will even remember the existence of the Minister of Transport, who will presumably be looking after roads, and one or two other odd things?
  Mr. Alexander:I cannot answer as to who will be the personnel at Ministerial level in the future, but from what I have got to know during the last 20 years, I am certain that the Staffs of the Services will see, through more efficient Staff College work, that their descendants in the profession will not forget to remind the people concerned of the lessons of the recent war. I was very glad to hear the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington with regard to the Chiefs of Staff. In view of what he said and of his quotation from the White Paper, all I need do is to assure the House, without any qualification whatsoever, that there is nothing in these arrangements that we propose which will hamper the Chiefs of Staff in their work or in the fullest and freest expression of their views on strategic requirements.
  870
  I should regard it, especially in view of my experience during the war, as grossly improper if the Minister of Defence, while holding the right to ask questions and check up in every possible way on the plans suggested, were to withhold, or to seek to check, the flow of information from the Chiefs of Staff, or their personal opinions, directly to the Cabinet.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Aldershot queried the absence of any reference in the White Paper to the part to be played in the new organisation by the Ministry of Transport. It is, of course, true, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) that peace conditions are not the same in this respect as they were in time of war. It goes without saying, however, that on any matters which do raise transport issues, especially in relation to the preparations to be brought into effect in the event of war, there will be the closest contact with the Ministry of Transport.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) criticised the lack of cooperation between the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, in certain specific services. His points will be considered, but I could, on the other hand, give him a large number of instances of most helpful and cordial assistance rendered by the Services to each other. I think it is true to say that the Services in this last war were almost compelled by the very circumstances to get more closely together than they ever had been before, and I am certain it will be a part of my function, if I am appointed to be Minister of Defence, in conjunction with the Staffs, to promote that in every possible degree. The need can, I think, be met by good will being shown upon all sides. We shall do what we can to improve it, but in regard to a number of points that have been raised—for instance, in the speech of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby)—I can say that, in regard to getting down to the lower levels, we hope that the setting up of the Joint Services Staff College for officers of all three Services of more junior rank than those attending the Imperial Defence College will be a very big step in that direction.
  I was greatly interested yesterday in the thoughtful and analytical speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall.

  871
  With a great deal of what he said in the earlier part of his remarks, when he was referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot, I am in general agreement. On the points of detail which he made, I entirely share his view that there must be always the closest contact between the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of Staff. As regards the actual arrangements to be made, either in connection with the allocation of available resources between the Services, or in connection with our Civil Defence organisation, I do not think he will expect me to commit myself today. We will see how things work out, and all that he has said will be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. R. Adams) made a valuable contribution to the Debate, especially on meeting the needs of the Services, and also the training of officers. His points also will be examined.
  The right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) made a speech in the Debate yesterday and I should like to thank him very warmly for his general support. He gave his reasons for resisting any amalgamation of the Services. I hope he will appreciate that in the White Paper we are making no revolutionary proposals in this respect beyond the administrative questions of common interest to the three Services, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said on this question of the administration of common services, I think I could say to him, and to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised the point last night, that they may be sure that we shall consider every proposal with due regard to the maintenance of professional efficiency and the avoidance of duplication of overheads. Very often one may get some suggestion for amalgamation which will still leave an administrative department to be run in each field of the three Services; the whole of the facts must be very carefully examined and weighed up in each case.
  The suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne with regard to the Dominions Secretary has been better answered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington than it could be by me perhaps, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will direct the attention of his
  872
  right hon. and gallant Friend to what he has had to say in that respect. I might assure hon. Members opposite generally who have raised the question of the Colonial position in this matter of the central organisation of defence, first of all, that the Colonial Secretary will be brought into the Defence Committee whenever Colonial questions are under consideration. On the other point, mentioned I think in the course of the Debate this afternoon, with regard to the Colonial economic body which is now operating, I feel certain that I can promise that its operations will never be left out of account by the staff set up which will be considering the different questions, where it is in respect of production, planning, or anything of the kind. I will make a special note to have a word with the people concerned about it to see that it is taken into account.
  Major Legge-Bourke:While I thank the Minister for that information, may I ask whether there will be any direct liaison between joint war production staffs and that body?
  Mr. Alexander:The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised this point tonight only and I have not had an opportunity of doing anything about it, but perhaps my promise that I will look into it will meet him. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne suggested yesterday that not only should Members of the Opposition be consulted on foreign and defence policies, but that there should be a defence sub-committee which Opposition leaders could attend. There may be times in the business of the House and in the general responsibility of the country when it would be a very good thing to have consultations upon high matters of foreign policy and defence. Consultation—yes. But when I come to consider the request about the defence sub-committee I must point out that the whole set-up of this defence organisation means that the Defence Committee will be an instrument of Government, and an instrument of Government, I submit to the House, must be the entire responsibility of His Majesty's Government.
  I did not hear the whole of the speech made last night by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) but I agree with him that there is need for great care not to get overloaded with

  873
  detailed administration, and this argument received strong support tonight from the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. No one is more anxious than I not to be overburdened in that direction. The Minister of Defence has always been so close to the Foreign Office, and the right hon. Gentleman was in the Foreign Office for so long, that perhaps he knows how nice it is for the various departments of the Foreign Office just to deposit something on the Defence tables and let them deal with it, although I do not suppose that that was what he had in mind when he was using the illustration. It will be my constant concern to keep my eye on things to see that my Ministry does not get, as was suggested elsewhere, cluttered up by unnecessary detail. I would say to the hon. Member for South Cardiff that I can understand his yearning to direct his attention to other than defence matters, but I was glad to note that he retained a realistic view of the situation. I am sure he recognises that in present circumstances the need for efficient maintenance of the minimum forces required to meet our commitments, first to the Commonwealth, but also to the United Nations organisation cannot be gainsaid.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) made special reference last night to economic intelligence and this point has been taken up again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington tonight. I can assure them from my personal experience in the war—and I am looking at it again now—that every possible use is being made of our economic information both for general purposes as well as for defence Service purposes. It is essential that we should do so, and we shall also do our best to maintain the very high level that we reached through the M.E.W. and to use that generally, both for our economic recovery purposes as well as making it available to the Defence organisation. The hon. and gallant Member for Seven-oaks (Colonel Ponsonby) made a number of points last night which I have covered, but I cannot help just saying to him that whilst there are experts sitting in another place—and we always study their reports and speeches with very great care—I do not think that he should forget that we also have experts available to us who, in some cases, might be regarded as a little more up to date in their active contact with present day conditions.
  874
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the junior Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson), together with other hon. Members who spoke in the course of the Debate yesterday, stressed the need to carry coordination between the Services right down to the lowest level. With the objects they had in mind I have the greatest sympathy, and I can assure them that it would be the aim of the new Minister to press for coordination of effort wherever that is both practicable and desirable. I would, however, remind them that there are already in existence many examples of effective collaboration between the three Services, and further, that it is highly desirable that the new Ministry should concentrate its attention, at least in the first instance, on matters of major importance and not allow its time and energy to be dissipated over too wide or too detailed a field of activity.
  To the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) I would return the same general reply, but I can tell him that I appreciate very much, as I feel sure do my Service colleagues, the force of his contention that our aim in relation to the fighting Services should be to provide them, in the event of need, with—and I cannot do better than quote his own words—
  "an efficient fighting force in which the tail is kept as short as possible and the teeth as long and as keen as possible."
  If he had lived through the long nights of the war with his right hon. Colleague on the Front Bench opposite and the present Prime Minister, and had heard the arguments with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) about the tails of the forces he would be quite sure that I needed no reminder.
  Mr. Turton:I did ask the right hon. Gentleman two specific questions dealing with earlier points about the Dominions: (1) Would the High Commissioner for the Dominions be invited to attend the meetings of the Dominions Committee; (2) would the same invitation be extended to visiting Ministers from the Empire?
  Mr. Alexander:I am going to say something towards the end of my speech about Dominion and Commonwealth

  875
  Defence questions, so perhaps I may be allowed to deal with that matter then. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) suggested that in dealing with the overall requirements of the Armed Forces and the apportionment of available resources, we should approach the matter first of all by determining how much was available for them, before we decided to what extent and in what direction the Services could undertake the various commitments which they were expected to undertake. I am afraid that he is advancing a point of view which has been the subject of a very great deal of criticism. For myself, I prefer the plan contemplated in the White Paper, under which the Defence Committee will first consider the strategic requirements, as represented to them by the Chiefs of Staff and those requirements will then be translated into terms of men, money and materials, and presented by the Defence Minister to his colleagues as a comprehensive plan, and if necessary to the Cabinet, before the Defence Committee decides what share of our national resources can be made available for the purpose of defence. In my view, this is not only a more realist approach but one more balanced, and more calculated to give us the kind of effective defence scheme required at any given moment.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) in the course of his remarks asked to be given some idea of the size of the new Ministry. As I am not yet appointed Minister I do not see how I can be expected to do that. At the moment, I cannot, therefore, give him a precise answer, but I would remind him of paragraph 34 of the White Paper, which indicates that although the functions now to be assigned to the Minister of Defence are such that it will not be possible for him to operate only through a small Secretariat, there is no expectation that he will need a large staff. Moreover, if it will reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset the Minister of Defence will have, in addition to his principal advisers, a relatively small staff in his own Department, partly civil and partly military, which, in addition to dealing with the day-to-day business of the Ministry, will provide the secretariat for the Committees and the joint staffs through which the Minister will mainly work.
  876
  I should like to turn for a few moments to the question which has been raised by more than one hon. Member concerning the relation between the new Central Organisation for Defence and the work of the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply in the sphere of production for the requirements of the Armed Forces. As the right hon. Member for Aldershot pointed out yesterday, there is a distinction between the provision of supply for the Navy and the provision of supply for the Army and the Air Force. For the particular needs of the Navy the Admiralty itself were responsible during the war, and will continue to be responsible under the present proposals of the Government. Although there are a number of things, like clothing, which used to be provided for separately, and which are being gathered up into the general service provision by the Ministry of Supply, I do not think that Ministry want to be asked to undertake the care of the Government's dockyards or to supply certain types of naval equipment.
  On the other hand, responsibility for furnishing a considerable range of stores and equipment for the Army and the Air Force is vested in the Minister of Supply. It was emphasised yesterday that, in the case of the Admiralty, there was the closest possible connection between the function of research, development and production on the one hand, and the function of the user on the other. That is true, but it must not be thought that because similar responsibility for the Army and the Air Force rests with the Ministry of Supply there is not the closest contact between the Air Force or the Army and the Ministry of Supply. All those who use the equipment when produced are brought into consultation. This point is constantly borne in mind. I was asking the Minister of Supply about it again today. He tells me that there are technical Service officers working in the Ministry of Supply at all levels, who maintain constant contact with both Army and Royal Air Force. If there is at any time doubt about that, and hon. Members are not satisfied with the position, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and myself will be glad to look into the matter.
  The. right hon. Gentleman yesterday thought it inappropriate that the Ministry of Supply, in addition to its responsibili-

  877
  ties for the Armed Forces, should be charged with other functions apparently of a wholly civilian character. I want to remind him that even in the list of articles to which he made a somewhat humorous reference, there are several items which would clearly be required by the Armed Forces in the event of war. Moreover, and much more important, we must not forget the need to maintain the production machinery of this country on a footing which has due regard to the needs of our war potential. Even current orders and current production programmes must be placed with that consideration in view. We must, indeed, foster all possible technical advances in peace production which will have a vital effect upon our later war preparations, if such a course should have to be followed.
  If the Ministry of Supply is to perform its functions quickly and effectively in time of war, it must always maintain with industry the kind of contact represented not only by current production requirements of the Armed Forces but also also by civilian requirements, more especially in the engineering field. One of the greatest points that we must keep in mind is that we must keep always available for our war potential the production of skilled workers who will then be required. I can assure hon. Members like the hon. Members for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) and Elland (Mr. Cobb), who referred to various aspects of the production problem, that both I and my colleagues have taken due note of what has been said. We shall endeavour to secure the greatest possible liaison between the two Departments in working out our plan in the field of research and development, and in the field of production we must constantly bear in mind the need of securing in peace the most effective preparedness for a smooth and rapid reorientation of the national resources to the needs of our defence, should occasion arise.
  I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the changing world that kind of policy has to be followed, no matter how costly and expensive our research and development programme may be. In consequence of all that, we must take the utmost care to pool our resources and, as far as we can, to correlate scientific research for defence Services with the constant expansion of scientific
  878
  research for civilian purposes. After all, we have not got such an enormous pool of scientists on the highest plane that we can afford to be prodigal in their use upon this, that, or the other project. We shall do our best to keep them all together.
  A new field of vital concern for defence purposes has been recently opened up with the General Staff. I want the House to note that the Minister of Supply has already said to me, in regard to his side of the matter, that he is anxious to get the greatest amount of cooperation. From the appointment as Chairman of the Committee on Defence Research Policy of Sir Henry Tizard, who rendered us such great services in the war and who had been constantly in touch with all branches of the Services, I feel that we shall make a very good beginning of our task in that direction.
  I shall leave some of the rest of the notes because I do not want to keep the House too long, but the House would not forgive me if I sat down without saying a word or two about the many speeches which have been delivered on those paragraphs of the White Paper which are headed "Collective Defence." That is in Part V of the White Paper. Let me, first of all, deal with the comments which have been made on the choice of the words of the heading. The term "collective defence" was not used in any attempt either to hark back to ideas prevalent before 1939 or to find some particularly innocuous expression in substitution for "Empire" or "Commonwealth." It was used simply and solely because this section of the White Paper deals not only with Colonial defence and with contacts on defence matters with the Dominions, but it must deal with any measure of collective defence which may be organised under the aegis of the United Nations. There has been no disposition on the part of any hon. Member to quarrel with the idea that all our defence measures at home and overseas must be looked at against the background of our obligations to the United Nations organisation. That, and that alone, provides the explanation of the form of wording used in the White Paper.
  There is, I think, general acceptance of what is said in paragraph 40 on the subject of Colonial defence, more especially of the proposal to revive the Overseas Defence

  879
  Committee as a sub-Committee of the Defence Committee in London, charged as it was before the war with surveying the whole field of defence preparations in the Colonies and their correlation with the general picture of Imperial defence. I was greatly interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg). In the first place, I would say to him that His Majesty's Government entirely endorse the tribute he paid to the great contribution made by the Colonies to the war effort, and that the Government are fully alive to the importance of raising the standard of life in the Colonies and to the relationship of this aspect to that of Colonial defence. As he will be aware from his own experience in the House—he was in the House when we passed it—we have a long-term plan for the financial and economic development of the Colonies which is of the greatest relevance in this context. As regards the postwar control and administration of Colonial Forces, this is a matter which the Government have under review at the present time. The advantages of War Office control of Colonial land Forces where this is practicable is fully realised both here and in the Colonies, and full account will be taken of this point in working out the arrangements for postwar Colonial defence.
  I now turn to the crux of the matter, that is to say, the arrangements to be made for contacts with the Dominions on matters of defence. In my view the starting point for any consideration of this question should be a remembrance by us of all the amazing contributions by the Dominions to the common war effort during the second world war on top of what they did in the first world war. This is not the occasion, nor is there time, to particularise those contributions with a detailed recital, but their nature will, I am sure, be present to the minds of every hon. Member in this House. Their efforts generally went far beyond anything required in relation to their own domestic location on the face of the globe. Never in my personal experience have I encountered a more apposite illustration of the truth of a very short verse in the old book of Proverbs:
  "A friend loveth at all times, but a brother is born for adversity"
  They were our brothers in adversity in 1939 and 1940. Sometimes we are still
  880
  inclined to talk about the Dominions as our sons and our daughters, and this is very important though it sounds very trivial. I wish we would think of them more as brothers who have grown up and are independent, and are contributing to the whole business in a really magnificent way. We shall want them to contribute more. As their population grows and goes on growing their resources are expanding, and they take, as they are entitled to take, their independent action in connection with their membership of the United Nations organisation. If we approach the general consideration of this matter from a recognition of their complete freedom and of the way they have helped us in the past, we shall make better progress.
  I would stress once more what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in opening the present Debate. The intention of the Government is to increase and not to diminish any opportunities which were previously available for the exchange of information and views with the Dominion Governments on matters of defence. What is required is not some rigid form of arrangement which would bring them within our own defence organisation as explained in the White Paper, but rather the closest practicable contact not only in the sphere of the Services themselves, but also at the highest possible level; that is to say, whenever possible, contact between responsible Ministers. It is the aim of His Majesty's Government to do everything that is practicable under both of those heads. If the proposals outlined in the White Paper are, in fact accepted by the Dominions, the House can rest assured that it will be the aim of His Majesty's Government to make those arrangements fully effective. I do not myself share the view that under those proposals we shall, as has been suggested, be restricted to a sort of contact of a Post Office character at a comparatively low level, but I feel convinced that the proposals made by the Government are capable of ensuring the maximum cooperation in defence matters with the Dominion Governments.
  I look at the time and I see how quickly it has gone. I feel tempted to go over all my notes on the various Members who have spoken so well today, but I think they will find from what I have already said that I have covered a great many of the points they have made. However,

  881
  I would like to say a word to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) who spoke about his anti-aircraft experience. I think he will find that we shall not fail to give proper attention to this matter and get the best scientific advice we can. My hon. and gallant Friend who sits below the Gangway, and also the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench leader, pointed out the extraordinary rapidity with which the world is changing. I am quite sure that in the requests the hon. Gentleman made to me tonight about this matter, he will appreciate that that has to be very firmly in our minds—the very idea of anti-aircraft protection will be changing in its form and in its matter day by day. We shall do our best to see that it changes quickly enough to be effective until such time as it ceases to be effective altogether.
  May I say, speaking generally to the House once more, that I am grateful to all who have been so kind in giving me a "send off" in this matter which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said is unusual. Perhaps it is all the more necessary for me to recall what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley said, "Beware when all men speak well of you." I know perfectly well from my long experience in the House of Commons that it will not be words which will be asked for in the end—even though this is such a wordy place; hon. Members will be asking for results. We shall do our best to provide the results that they want in the light of the constant need for restoring the country's general economy and also, in that direction, saving expense as far as we can. However, we shall not give up either our persistent attempts to make the United Nations organisation function effectively in preventing disputes from leading to a break in peace but, at the same time, we shall feel that we must make our forces such, first, that we can fulfil our commitments under the Charter of the United Nations organisation, secondly, however difficult it may seem to my hon. Friends on these benches from time to time, that we must have such forces within the British Commonwealth in addition as might enable us to hold a situation until such time as the general forces of U.N.O. could come to the assistance of that part of our Dominions or Colonies which perhaps might be attacked. We shall take all those matters into full
  882
  consideration, at all times, but that is our general objective. I beg the House, therefore, not to let us return to a position in this postwar world in which the Services shall be gradually regarded as something highly undesirable, the Cinderellas of the disbursement of the nation's resources, but let us do our best to see that what actually is required is kept in a state of efficiency and up-to-dateness in technical development.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  'That this House approves the proposals in Command Paper No. 6923 for the Central Organisation for Defence."

  RAW COTTON PRICES
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll:I beg to move,
  "That the control of the Cotton Industry (Adjustment of Single Yarn Prices) Direction (No. 4) 1946 S.R. & O. 1946, No. 1678), dated 16th October, 1946, a copy which was presented on 23rd October, be annulled."
  Those of us who have been watching world price movements in cotton during the last few months have fully appreciated that they have risen, and therefore the laying of this new Order on the Table came to us as no surprise; indeed, we have been surprised that it has not come earlier. What is, however, most unsatisfactory to us is the staggering nature of that price rise. The wording of the Order is as follows:
  The price for American raw cotton (basis middling) is increased to 20.20d. per lb., but the price for that cotton shall continue to be 13.85d. per lb. for the purpose of ascertaining the prescribed price for any controlled American type yarn in relation to a contract of sale made before the 21st day of October, 1946."
  That means in effect that on 21st October the price rose by about 6d. per lb. As recently as a fortnight ago this staggering increase of price was still not sufficient to bring the price of raw cotton as sold to the spinners up to the general level of world prices. The Government might well have asked, "What are you grumbling about in the Opposition? The price is still below the world price. You ought to be thankful for small mercies in hard times. At least the spinners have been getting cotton at prices substantially below world prices until we put the price up." Even

  883
  that argument has been altogether changed by events to which I will refer later.
  It is significant that this price increase has brought forth relatively few complaints from spinners. That might well be brought forward as an argument against a fractious Opposition in raising the matter at all. We are accused of toiling not nor spinning, and it might be asked what business is it of ours. The men who are turning the cotton into yarn are not complaining. But it is the fact that they are not complaining about this increase that makes me raise the matter so seriously tonight. The reason is that if the Government's control of the price of raw cotton lags behind the general rise in world prices, Lancashire spinners are not going to mind. They do not mind getting cotton cheaper than their competitors. What they will mind—and it has not yet come about—is if there is a similar lag when world prices are falling. Then it will be a very different story.
  Lancashire spinners do not mind if the price goes up. For the moment, it does not affect their profits. In any case, such is the gross artificiality of a system which permits such a savage increase in prices overnight by means of Orders, that they are able to pass on the increased price of yarn to the weavers, who can pass it through their orders, to converters, and it can be passed on to the public, with the important exception of Utility cloth, which remains at the same price, a price which has been subsidised for some time past. The subsidy will have to be considerably increased now by an unknown amount. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman replies he will tell us how much greater the subsidy will be in respect of Utility cloth.
  That subsidy is, of course, borne by the Exchequer, and is, therefore, a direct charge on public funds. Consequently, this considerable increase in the price of raw cotton will mean not only the continuance of the artificial position in which the Lancashire spinning industry finds itself, but it will mean yet another charge upon the taxpayer if the price of Utility cloth is not to be raised. There are arguments in favour of keeping the price of Utility cloth stable, but that aspect is not part of my case tonight. But I think that it is right that we, as guardians of the public purse, should realise that this
  884
  Order does, in effect, increase the drain of money from the Exchequer. Though I do not question the value of maintaining a cheap durable cloth on the market, we should, however, know how much it is costing us at the present time.
  The next point I wish to raise in connection with this Order is that it raises the price of a general commodity known as American cotton. In these days of oversimplification we are apt to think that all cotton is very much the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I may use a simple illustration, for so many years we have come to think that we in Britain can only make one standard of cheese that we never bother to distinguish between Cheddar, Cheshire and Stilton cheese—it is just cheese. We have simplified the matter— [Interruption] —possibly it might be called mouse trap cheese. In other parts of the world they are getting their cheeses going again, and we are seeing brought into this country some satisfactory and pleasant types of cheese, showing that there are many varieties, though we are compelled to have only one. In the same way, Lancashire cotton spinners are compelled to select a very narrow range of cotton for their spinning process, a far narrower range than they would like to have, and did indeed have, in peace time.
  I would, therefore, ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who, I believe, is to reply, if he will tell us just what types of cotton he is proposing to sell, because at the moment the spinner is buying a pig in a poke. He has to buy the cotton by description and mark, and not by sampling. If cotton was an entirely uniform commodity, like distilled water or fresh air, that would not matter very much, but it is capable of many variations of types and style. The spinner is not allowed to sample the bales of cotton before he is compelled to purchase them. That probably did not matter very much to the spinner when the price was so low. He said, "I do not mind if it is not quite what I wanted, it is dirt cheap anyway." Now that the price has gone up considerably it will matter rather more. The effect will not be noticeable straight away because the Lancashire mills are sold out for many months to come, but we hope that supply and demand will gradually equalise, and the spinner will become much more particular about what the

  885
  Government are selling him under this and similar Orders. Of course, by that time he may have got used to taking what he is given, and he may have lost the fine art of spinning the super quality yarn for which Lancashire is world famous.
  The Department of the President of the Board of Trade issues a well-known journal, and last September it contained a handsome article about the importance of quality in Lancashire textiles. That article very cleverly skated over the basic feature of quality in Lancashire textiles, namely the quality of the yarn. We had a lot of high sounding stuff about design and dyeing, but we did not have very much about raw cotton and the importance of getting exactly the type of cotton which one needs for the money that one has available. The sort of stuff which the Cotton Control is selling at these high price is not nearly good enough for Lancashire if we are to have Lancashire exports in future successfully competing in the world market.
  The true folly of the action of the Government is to be seen in the prices of the past few days, because just at the time when the Government were raising the price of raw cotton by 6d. a pound the American price was falling by 6d. a pound. We are now in the comical position of paying much more for our cotton in this country when the Americans are paying less.
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:Will the hon. Member tell the House how much more than the world price is the price of cotton to English spinners?
  Mr. Erroll:I wanted to get the figures on the "tape" tonight but unfortunately they had not appeared by the time I entered the Chamber. I will give the most recent figures which I have. I understand the British Government were buying American cotton at about 35 cents a pound. Since then the price has dropped. On 28th October it had dropped to about 30.5 cents per pound and I am told that it has now dropped to 28 cents per pound. It has dropped so quickly that it has been hard to keep up with the movements. We could have been enjoying the benefit of this remarkable fall in the price of cotton had we not gone in for this stupid restrictive policy of arbitrarily fixing a high price. The Government are supplying cotton to Lancashire
  886
  spinners at prices substantially above world prices. I am sure that the Secretary for Overseas Trade will make much play of the fact that he was slow in raising the prices by this Order. He will say that for a long time Lancashire spinners had the benefit of prices substantially below the world prices. I hear hon. Members opposite assent to that. Naturally, I think if it always worked one way that would be an excellent arrangement. I am all for getting something for less than it costs. That is a very healthy Tory system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—a system followed not only by Tories but by others.
  However, the real danger will arise when prices move in the opposite direction. If this is an example of how the Government intend to function in a matter of this kind, we will have a similar tardiness when it comes to a question of reducing the prices. That is where the real danger creeps in.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Why not bring it up then?"] Unfortunately, we cannot bring it up then, because the time for making a Prayer against an Order of this kind elapses at the end of 40 days, and we do not know what will happen with these slightly British inflated prices, which are already well above today's prices on the American market. We are in honour bound to make this Prayer tonight in order to get this ridiculous Order annulled before Lancashire spinners are compelled to buy any more cotton substantially above the world prices.
  It may make sense to hon. Members opposite that the Lancashire spinners should be handicapped in this way, but it does not make sense to us on this side. One may well ask how this situation has come about. It undoubtedly arises from this country's dependence upon American supplies of raw cotton. It is through no fault of ours that we do not grow cotton in this country. The temperature, the weather and other conditions are not suitable for growing cotton.
  Mr. Diamond:Why not blame the Labour Government for that, too?
  Mr. Erroll:I will deal with that later. It is the sort of policy which a Labour Government would follow—to fry to grow cotton in this country—the sort of crazy thing which they would go in for. The

  887
  point that arises is that this artificial price comes about through our dependence upon the American market. We have to get our supplies from America, and we have been trying, I think, in these Orders, to insulate ourselves from American price fluctuations. That is a nice form of idealism, but we are already seeing that it does not work out in practice. We had a very large rise not long ago of 4d. a pound then the greatest rise there has ever been, and, since then, this new rise of 6d. per lb., which is the record overnight rise that has ever taken place. We now feel that we need not have made a rise at all, because American prices are tumbling down. Why are they tumbling down? It is not because of speculators and gamblers using the commodity markets of the world as a kind of casino for their own profit. It is nothing like that at all. It arises from circumstances very largely of our own making.
  It arises, firstly, through our holding off the market something like two million bales of cotton which, without my going into the details of the Liverpool Cotton Market, are something which would act as a counter weight or balance to the fluctuation. This large stock, if it could be thrown into the world market or could be held available to be thrown into the world market, could act as a stabilising influence, and the fact that it is not available narrows the market. The next reason why we are getting these violent fluctuations in the market today which makes the British price so unfairly handicapped, is that the price went up very sharply and the Government acted with unbelievable stupidity in saying what they were going to do. They used to send cables to our buyer in America to buy certain quantities at certain times on the following day. That is the very worst thing one can do in such a market, because everybody puts their prices up. It is through this stupid buying that we have got this artificial price which is the subject of this Prayer.
  I would like to quote from a letter which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian," which expresses so very much better than I am able to do the sort of dilemma in which the British Government have placed themselves:
  "As the Cotton Controller is buying considerable quantities 'on call' on Dec. or March New York futures, rather than fixing prices as and when contracts are made, it
  888
  must be a cause for great anxiety for the civil servant who has to decide when to 'call,' that is, to fix the price on the basis of the ruling prices of futures. Recently, orders were cabled to 'fix' many thousands of bales at certain times on the following day. This meant the buying of thousands of bales of future, by exporters. Under present limited trading conditions this was a fantastic order"—
  and this was the point—
  "especially when the market had been previously advised."
  Thereby, the complete lunacy of the Government's present policy is exposed. It is as though a man walked into the New York Cotton Exchange with a Union Jack waistcoat and saying, "I am a British buyer," and then wondering why the price had gone up.
  The letter further says:
  'Never in the wildest days of the 1920–21 slump or in the American crash in 1929–31 were daily fluctuations so wild."
  You Gentlemen opposite, who are always saying, "Look what the Tories failed to do after the Battle of Hastings," should look at what you are doing after this war.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young)rose—
  Mr. Erroll:I am sorry. Those who suggest that we Tories failed to do certain things after the Battle of Hastings, or after more recent wars, should look at what they are now doing after the last war, and should realise that they are now permitting far wilder fluctuations in commodity markets than ever took place before. That is what we have to thank Socialism for.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy:Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the policy which is being pursued by His Majesty's Government in connection with the purchasing of cotton is similar to the policy pursued by the President of the Board of Trade under the Conservative Government of 1941?
  Mr. Erroll:Certainly. I am quite prepared to agree that it is a continuation of a wartime policy. But it is not only the fact that it was a wartime policy which makes the difference, but the fact, which was incidental to the war, that we were getting Lend-Lease cotton and, therefore, it did not much matter what the system was. But now that we are having to pay

  889
  for it with hard earned dollars it is a very different story. [An HON. MEMBER: "Borrowed dollars."] Yes. borrowed dollars.
  Mr. McLeavy:Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the policy is wrong now but was not wrong then because we were getting the cotton under Lend-Lease? In other words, the present practice which is being carried out by His Majesty's Government is precisely the same practice as that carried out by a Tory President of the Board of Trade in 1941. Surely, if there is any criticism at all, it is against the policy started by the Tory Government.
  Mr. Erroll:I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) to make his full speech without interrupting mine. I suggest that conditions are now entirely different, and that it is yet another example of the Government's present method of using wartime controls, applicable to wartime conditions, to foist Socialism on to us in time of peace. As I say, we are witnessing a catastrophic fall in the price of raw cotton in America which has compelled them to close the cotton market several times during the past few days. That is a direct consequence of British action and a direct consequence of our buying at a high price and having to charge a high price to our own spinners.
  In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary may suggest that, if we continue this process long enough, we shall induce a new system in the American Cotton Exchange. I venture to suggest that he should not be so arrogant as to assume that our relatively small purchases in the world market can stabilise the position. We only consume about one-tenth of the world's crop, and it is quite impossible for that small purchase to stabilise world prices. The way we are doing it at present, always buying on the top of the market after it has been going up, is complete folly. Of course, the Government may have some sinister intentions. It may be that they are out to break the American Cotton Exchange as a sort of pay-back for the Americans not supplying foodstuffs to us. There may be a sort of Machiavellian policy behind all this, some grand intrigue to justify bulk trading in cotton at all costs because bulk trading in rubber is proving such a flop.
  890
  It may be that we shall pay even more for our cotton. Perhaps this is the first of a number of Orders increasing the price still further, while the Government pursue their policy of the Gadarene swine rushing down the slope. Perhaps that simile is not quite apt; I should have said, "rushing up the slope." No doubt, I can rely upon hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the most of that point
  Mr. Harrison:Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the American version of why the bottom has fallen out of the cotton market there?
  Mr. Erroll:One can only go on relatively brief reports which appear in the British newspapers, and they say that there has been some extraordinary, unregulated buying.
  Mr. Harrison:Speculation?
  Mr. Erroll:Yes, speculation by the British Government. That is the whole trouble. It is because these purchases take place in bulk in very large quantities, in what is technically called a very narrow market, that we are getting these extraordinary fluctuations in price. Carried out under normal circumstances—and I do not wish to digress into the full details of the functioning of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange—there would be a much broader market; the purchases would be spread over the whole of the peak, or hump, of high prices and would be constantly insured against by the purchase or sale of futures. The whole situation arises out of the folly of the Government at Bretton Woods. I hope the Secretary for Overseas Trade will give us a satisfactory reply, although we feel that it may well be necessary to divide on all these Orders because of the seriousness of the position. The Government are manifestly following entirely the wrong course in the policy which they are pursuing. We are protesting against it, and are seeking, as an immediate practical measure, to annul this Order so as to bring the prices of raw cotton in this country back to something like normal.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd:I beg to second the Motion.
  I do not think even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Government can have been impressed by what has been happening in the sphere of State buying

  891
  during the past few months. All those unfortunate tendencies which were almost laughed out of court by hon. Members opposite, when they were forecast from these benches only a short time ago, are, in fact, coming to pass. What has been demonstrated more clearly than anything else is that it is impossible to find any artificial substitute for the normal price mechanism. Any Government which seeks to find an artificial substitute merely indulges in a battle which it must ultimately lose. It is possible that the Government can lose battles and make the taxpayers pay, as they were going to make the taxpayers pay for a little battle in State trading which was lost some little time ago.
  We on this side of the House are concerned with lightening the burden on the taxpayer, and we look with concern on these examples of maladministration by the Government and their obvious incapacity in all matters relating to business. To many of us it is not surprising that when it comes to trading, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not display the amount of tact and acumen which one might have thought necessary in high places. But this country is paying and will, doubtless, continue to pay for the incapacity of the Government.
  We were told that the Liverpool Cotton Exchange should be eliminated, for the very simple reason that it encouraged violent fluctuations of prices. Yet the Government have introduced this Order which represents the wildest fluctuations that ever occurred on any given day, in which the price is increased, not by a penny or a halfpenny, but from is. 2d. to is. 8d. That is a most unwarranted increase in price if the Government are correct, and if the contention of hon. Members opposite is justified, that here we have a means of stabilising prices, because we have this jump, shooting up from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 8d.
  We feel that this increase in price will fill the people of Lancashire with a good deal of fear, because if this is the kind of treatment to which they are likely to be subject in the future, then in any entirely different market set-up from that which exists at the present time the future of Lancashire cannot be bright. I suggest that the time has come when all these attempts to institute artificiality in price
  892
  level ought to be abandoned, and that the normal interplay of forces should take place, with such other safeguards as the Government might well think fit to introduce in the interests of the country. This Order is one which will give no satisfaction to Lancashire, but gives the indication that violent fluctuations are likely to take place in the future.
  8.52 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:I did not realise we were to have a completely new Debate on the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. I had hoped that that subject, like the Cotton Exchange, was closed.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:The hon. and gallant Member cannot debate the closing of the Cotton Exchange unless he relates it to the Order.
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:That is exactly my point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we have in fact had an attack on the Government's present system for procuring cotton for our spinners. It did amount to that. However, I will avoid referring to it and will deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). I think it was a little unkind of him to accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of being arrogant before he had opened his mouth. But we will leave that point and get on to the question of the fluctuations. It appears that hon. Members opposite are extremely annoyed with the Government for insulating this country from the fluctuation which is afflicting America at the moment. According to the latest report in "The Times"—perhaps hon. Members opposite now no longer read "The Times"—I notice it is there attributed by an American correspondent entirely to speculation by, I think they say, "everybody in the South." They mention that—
  "It has ruined thousands of farmers, ginners, bankers, and cotton merchants, not just speculators."
  Mr. Erroll:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman quote the whole of the context and reveal that that is merely the statement of an individual, and not the considered opinion of "The Times" correspondent?
  Mrs. Castle:It was the same with the "Manchester Guardian."
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:Since we have just had one opinion quoted against us from the "Manchester Guardian" I am giving another opinion in reply. It is obvious to anyone who has studied the activities of our Buying Commission that they are not responsible for the increase in price.
  Sir William Darling:They are irresponsible.
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:One of the factors is, of course, the taking off of controls in America, and the terrific wave of speculation which has developed. Another point the hon. Member made was that the price of cotton was such as to handicap cotton spinners. Now, he has stated specifically the spinners have not been complaining on the subject. He got dangerously near the subject of a certain place I must not mention, and dealt with the question of inability to buy by sample, and having to put up with buying by description. I hope the Minister, when he comes to reply, will indicate the plans of the Government to buy by sample. But I cannot understand why, when Lancashire has been insulated by the present policy of this Government from the disastrous sort of thing which is happening in America, which happened in the past in Lancashire, they should then be complaining. He mentioned the fluctuation as being higher than in any one day in the past, but over a longer period in 1920, the fluctuation in American middling cotton was from 27.32d. per pound to 6.38d., which is an extraordinary fluctuation and much more difficult to absorb.
  When we had a Debate on another occasion, it was pointed out that we did not then have the benefit of the report of the cotton industry Working Party. We have that now, and it states that though it is quite clear that that industry was able to cover iself against those risks,
  "this opportunity was never fully utilised, nor could all risks, directly or indirectly arising from fluctuation in raw cotton prices be avoided."
  What has happened is that the Government are carrying out their plans to ensure stable market conditions, and the cotton spinners of Lancashire are operating at a price well below the world market or, at any rate, the American market price. Despite that fact—and I think this is also true—we have shown a profit on these activities, and the taxpayer has not
  894
  had to pay for that. The Minister will have an opportunity to quote his figures on that if he has some, and I am sure he will be able to give that information. In addition, the present price of cotton, which the hon. and gallant Member said was so very much higher than the American price, is, in fact, now little more than 1d. above the existing American price, and he seems to think that that smoothing out we have achieved is now going to operate adversely, and contrary to the interests of the Lancashire cotton spinners; but I think it is quite possible there may be another rise. I do not know whether then he will come back with another Prayer to ask that the price of cotton should be put up.
  But it is quite clear that, at the moment, the Government have successfully avoided the extremes of fluctuation. In fact, the world price of cotton in March was 24 cents per pound; it went to 39; and now it has dropped to about 28, and large numbers of people have been ruined in America, and in the meanwhile the Lancashire cotton industry is going along as smoothly as it possibly can, and certainly undisturbed by these appalling fluctuations, which are causing such a crisis in America. At the moment certain of the Representatives in America have asked that the American cotton market should be closed until some steps can be taken to stabilise the market. It can only be done if the American Government go into the market themselves to iron out these fluctuations. There are many other points which I do not want to deal with in detail.
  Mr. E. P. Smith:Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the American Government should go into the market and should buy cotton when the prices of cotton have fallen to a considerable extent? Is he, therefore, in favour of the Government supporting a bull market?
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:I did not say anything of the sort. All I said was that if the Government are going to stabilise the market, they will have to take certain steps, and in the past, in America, as hon. Members know, demands were made to provide a buffer by building up American stocks. This was not entirely successful, because there was a glut at that particular time. Nevertheless, it is clear that this Government's policy has been successful in

  895
  protecting Lancashire from the sort of fluctuations of which we are seeing such a terrible example at the moment in America.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. E. P. Smith:I only rise to intervene in this Debate because I have spent 25 years of my life in the terminal commodity markets in London, although not in the cotton market, so I only propose to say a few words from the point of view of terminal markets and buying on terminal markets in connection with commodities generally. I think the House will agree that it is obvious that what has been called unregulated buying must disorganise any market, whether it is a terminal or any other market. We have the phenomenal position in this country now of seeing prices for raw cotton going up while the price of cotton in the country of origin is going down. It is a very extraordinary position, and must embarrass not only the producers in the country of origin but also, very seriously, the manufacturers in the country of manufacture. Close buying and close selling are absolutely vital in any market which pretends to normality; and I must confess that in my judgment the absence of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange in this country has led, or will lead, to a position wherein there will not be that same close buying and selling. The hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) has said that he objects to any insulation on the part of this country with regard to cotton prices, but if we are buyers on a falling market and buyers at a price above that market, we are necessarily insulating—I hope I have not misrepresented the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
  Wing-Commander Shackleton:The hon. Gentleman is completely misrepresenting me. I will not repeat again the whole of that particular passage in my speech, but I did make clear, I thought, that by Government action we have succeeded in insulating the Lancashire cotton industry from the effect of fluctuations which were produced by speculation. I know that in the past, when Governments were less highly organised and the Labour Party was not in power, there was in fact no other device than the futures market for doing it, but at the present moment
  896
  it is possible to achieve that protection by Government action.
  Mr. Smith:I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He says that Government action in the past has possibly tended to iron out fluctuations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I appreciate that that may be so, but now we are in a position where the price of the raw material is falling very heavily and we are not getting the benefit of it. That is the whole point of my hon. Friend's Prayer. We are not getting the benefit of the falling market in the country of origin. That is a point where we simply must make up our minds, that we shall get the benefit of the actual market price in the country of origin, whatever may have happened during the war when insulation was necessary, as I entirely agree, to have control in order to prevent the price running away. Now that the war is over this is surely the moment at which we ought to be able to take advantage of a falling price in the country of production.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot:As one who knows a little bit about cotton, I feel that it is desirable to say a word from these benches. At the outset, I should like to explain that this Prayer is directed against a series of Orders that have been made by the Board of Trade, none of which cover the actual price of cotton, but the price of waste cotton for certain specific reasons—
  Mr. Erroll:If the hon. Member reads Order 1678, he will see that it deals with the price of raw cotton. It says so in the explanatory memorandum.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot:I should not have thought that that point arose, as I was about to explain. The point is that these Orders regulate the price of cloth, of yarn and waste cotton.
  Sir W. Darling:Where in the Order is reference to the price of yarn or cloth?
  Mr. Scott-Elliot:The hon. Member will realise that we are discussing these Orders taken together.
  Sir W. Darling:Am I wrong in supposing, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are discussing Order 1678?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:We are discussing all six Orders.
  Sir W. Darling:I apologise to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot:It is perfectly clear what these Orders are directed against. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll), and other hon. Members who have spoken, are making the point that the price has been fixed too high, and the way in which the Government have been buying cotton has produced violent fluctuations in America. The question of fixing prices too high has been dealt with admirably by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton). I believe that the actual disparity at the moment is something in the nature of 2d. a lb.
  Hon. Members opposite do not seem to appreciate that for months and months past the Cotton Control had been selling under world parity. What is going to happen next week? Perhaps there will he a reverse in the speculative process going on in America, and perhaps the price of cotton will go up. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), that we must get in step with world prices, if we do that we shall be constantly issuing fresh orders, and hon. Members opposite would have an opportunity constantly to pray against them. Why have these Orders been made? They have been made because there has been a steep advance in the price of American cotton. Why has that steep rise taken place? It has taken place for two reasons. In the first place, it arises out of speculation, and secondly, because controls were taken off the other side of the Atlantic.
  Mr. Erroll:Controls have not been taken off finished cotton textiles, and therefore the lack of control does not apply.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot:I entirely agree in so far as textiles are concerned. It does however apply to raw cotton. There is a fear of a grave shortage of cotton, as hon. Members opposite probably know. The American cotton crop is unlikely to exceed nine million bales, whereas 12 million or 13 million bales could be taken as an average American crop. In other words, there is a deficiency of 25 per cent. on the normal American crop.
  In addition, there is a general shortage of cotton in the world. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) made no reference to what is happening in India.
  898
  There is a shortage of food in India, and land has been put under groundnuts and other crops instead of cotton, with the result that India has put a ban upon the export of all cottons, except certain short staple sorts which would be quite unsuitable for Lancashire. The market is naturally narrow. That is nothing whatever to do with the very careful operations, as I believe them to have been, of the Cotton Control in buying in the American market. It is the operations of the American speculators who, seeing this short crop and seeing that, throughout the world, there is likely to be a shortage of cotton, have jumped in and caused the market to plunge up and down in this manner.
  Let me give the House an account of what has happened. Earlier this year, the price in America was about 24 cents a lb. By 14th October the price had gone up to 39·45 cents. Then it began to fall heavily, having been pushed up unduly, with the result that yesterday the price was 2939·30 cents. Nobody knows where it will go next, and it is inadvisable to speculate in that matter. Attention has been drawn to the question of types of cotton not being available. I have drawn attention to the fact that Indian cottons are not available. There are Peruvian and Brazilian cottons, but the Brazilians are using a great deal more of their own cotton for manufacture at the present time. One point which the hon. Member for Altrincham did not realise—I believe I am right in saying this—is that we have a virtual monopoly in buying the fine Sakellarides cottons of the Sudan, which are not available to the rest of the world, very largely by reason of the fact that we have a central buying organisation which is being so admirably conducted.
  There is only one other point I want to make. Although the point has not really been brought up by hon. Members opposite, I want to answer it in advance. They have not stressed, as I expected they would do, that Lancashire manufacturers would be at a disadvantage. We could sell over and over again the amount of cotton goods that become available for export. I believe that at the moment we are exporting—I speak subject to correction—about £5 million worth of cotton goods a month. We could sell immeasurably more than that if only the cotton goods were available. The difficulty is not the price, but the supply of labour for

  899
  the cotton industry. Therefore, even if for a temporary period—it may he for one or two weeks, or even one or two months—we are slightly over parity, having been under parity for the last six months, it will not seriously affect anybody in the country; nor is it likely to affect British exports. In view of what I have said I hope the House will treat this Prayer in the manner in which it deserves to be treated.
  9.14 p.m.
  Major Haughton:I make no apology for approaching this subject from a strictly business point of view, and from the point of view of one who has served his time in the textile trade and is still deeply concerned with it. I am glad to see on the benches opposite one or two hon. Members, whom I can claim as personal friends, who will concede that point. I have in my hand this bunch of Orders, four of which are in the same sequence and were published on the same date. I cannot understand why they were not brought forward as one Order. It is very complex from a political point of view, and still more complex from a business point of view. I have been struggling all morning with one of these Orders. We are, at present, undoubtedly, in a seller's market, but the day is not very far distant when we shall have to bestir ourselves, so that we offer not only value for money but are able to rely, once again, on British branded goods. Some hon. Members took exception to the point raised about the selection of grades. Many of the branded lines of cotton were based on selection. During the last 18 months, I have tried very hard to get certain types of cloth woven from certain types of yarn which would have gone to produce branded lines, which must be re-established if we are to extend our trade both at home and abroad.
  Arguments have been raised tonight about why fluctuation has taken place on the American Cotton Exchange. I have always thought, ever since we have debated this question of State buying and bulk buying, that if the Government had conceded a point, which, I understand, they now concede, and had been prepared like an ordinary business concern to publish a trading account and a balance sheet at the end of each year, we would feel a great deal more confidence. I have
  900
  always felt that they have hesitated to do that because it has been suggested that, under a system of State bulk buying, there is to be no such thing as loss, or, at any rate, if loss takes place it will not be an individual loss, but would fall on the taxpayer.
  I say with sincerity that I appreciate very much the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, when those of us concerned with these things have gone to him to ask for help in relaxing some of the restrictions, especially restrictions upon style. I was at pains this morning to get into touch with the trade associations concerned with these matters, and I feel that a great deal more could be done. I hope that the Ministers concerned will be prepared to go into these particular matters.
  We can debate this subject in detail, but, if we want to get down to brass tacks, we have to ask ourselves what is the position of the spinning mills, the weaving sheds and the making-up factories throughout the country. It is very unsatisfactory. Much to my regret I have had to close down a considerable amount of plant this week for lack of cloth; not for lack of labour. From the trade associations, I learn that in the 12th allocation, the amount of cloth available is about one-tenth of that applied for. Firms which have applied for 10,000 yards of a particular type of cloth under this allocation, are getting 1,000 yards, and, in some cases, only 500 yards. From all these points of view, I feel that these Orders must be prayed against, and I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion so ably put by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll).
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Rhodes:I rise to speak in this Debate because I happened to be on the New York Exchange, a week last Monday, when they were recovering from the first shock. I heard that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) had also been in those parts, and that may be the reason for his sudden access of interest in the subject. I wish to put one question to the hon. Member Seeing that he made the allegation, does he really suggest that the New York merchants rigged the market against the Government buyers from this country?
  Mr. Erroll:Of course, I do not make such an allegation. That is the way the market goes. When a buyer goes into the market, it becomes a bullish market, and when a Government buyer goes into the market, it becomes a very bullish market.
  Mr. Rhodes:My information was to the contrary: that it made no difference to the prices quoted to our representatives on the spot. It was rather a question of speculation, namely, the enormous transactions of Tom Jordan down in New Orleans. It was well known all over America what he was doing, and it was also known all over New York why the market was going up. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) was correct when he made the point about the removal of controls. I have it on excellent authority that one shirt manufacturer in New York has in stock at the present time, ready for issue as soon as possible after the removal of controls, 6,000,000 doz. shirts.
  Sir W. Darling:Let us remove the controls, then, and keep our shirts.
  Mr. Rhodes:That is having its influence. The hon. Member for Accrington has been talking about absorption in bales. Over there they talk about absorption of square yards. I believe that nine million was the figure before the war; now they say they can absorb 12 million. They are gambling on that. The attitude of the manufacturer over there is to say that we are taking an unfair advantage of the market. That view is very strongly held by many manufacturers whom I have visited in South Carolina. On the question of purchases in the trade, under the second Act of Congress, 2,000 organisations interested in the production of cotton can claim for each one of their members the right to have their grades of cotton classified by Government officials. It is possible at present for many American manufacturers in the South to go direct to the Ginnery to buy, and that is the tendency today in America. I heard that not only in the South, but also from a Memphis broker, who said, "I am seeing my business taken away from me because we are having direct trade between the spinners and the growers." All this fuss is in between the man who does the work on the spot with his hands and the man who does the work in the mill.
  Major Haughton:Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the American spinner has the opportunity to go and select his own particular cotton?
  Mr. Rhodes:Definitely; and that is another reason why the opinion is widely held that in time, without any question, the control of cotton will take place in America just as it has here—and about time, too. That is what is happening with regard to some growths of cotton there and the attitude of some manufacturers in America. The basic principle underlying all this argument is whether we can afford to let these controls slip.
  Mr. Speaker:In any case, whether we can let controls slip or not, they have been decided by Parliament and, therefore, they must remain. That should not be the argument before us now. It is merely a question of a rise in price.
  Mr. Rhodes:I got a lot in, Mr. Speaker, and so did hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They have done very well, but I think we on this side are winning. I was about to conclude by saying this. We may be accused in this country of having queues of people waiting outside shops for materials that they can buy when they go in; in America they are stopping people from going in because they cannot afford to buy. That is what would happen in this country if hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way. It is what they have been fighting for this last 12 months, a pale imitation of a decayed system.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Birch:I should like to answer in a few moments some of the points made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel that these sharp alterations in prices particularly illustrate the danger of partial planning—that is to say, endeavouring to plan something with control of only ten per cent. of the factors. Practically every hon. Member opposite who has risen has said, "We are doing well, but it is a bit unsatisfactory at the moment because of American speculation." Of course, the Americans speculate; they always have and always will, and, with respect to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), to say that the Americans are moving towards controls is against the facts. They are not going to do it. What we have to

  903
  do is to survive in a world where the Americans are determined to speculate. We can insulate ourselves if we can make a ring fence round this country. We cannot insulate ourselves if we still aspire to export cotton. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) to say that he could sell abroad a great deal more than he can produce. That is perfectly true at the moment, but what about the time when the six million dozen shirts mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne come on to the market. We are in a temporary phase but we shall soon have to sell goods abroad based on the free market price of cotton. That always has been so, and I do not see any reason why it should not be so in the future.
  As for the point that it has been advantageous for manufacturers in the past because they have been getting cotton below the world price, that is true, but it illustrates that the system works perfectly well provided that one is on a rising market. What is bound to happen is that the Government will be a permanent, uncovered bull, which is a good thing to be if prices go up steadily every week, but when they go down it is a very punishing thing to be, as no doubt the hon. Member for Accrington knows very well.
  The idea of many hon. Members on the Government Benches that ultimate wisdom resides in the Treasury or in the Secretary for Overseas Trade, or in somebody of that kind, is curious. What decides these things is not some impersonal body at all, but some little bald man with rimless pince-nez, sitting in an office. That is the person who decides buying policy. It is a work of genius to forecast what is going to happen to a market. In my experience the balder you are and the larger your rimless pince-nez the more consistently you are wrong. That is precisely what has occurred. There always were fluctuations. We get them just as violently now, but under the old system one could do something to insure oneself against them by forward dealing. Now we are fighting against someone we do not know—the bald man with the pince-nez.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Marquand (Secretary for Overseas Trade):I must confess that before the
  904
  Debate began I had some trepidation. I feared that there might be a repetition of the events of last night, when those who came to pray remained to scoff. I have no complaint at all tonight with the way hon. Members opposite presented their case. Indeed, I was very impressed with the skill in developing his argument, and with the patience and good temper, displayed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). For the moment I was almost beginning to wonder whether I might have to change my mind. But after my hon. Friends on this side of the House had spoken, a different impression prevailed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bucklow seems to have left the House in order to change his mind. It was he who said that hon. Members on this side of the House knew nothing about trade, but the demonstration we have had tonight of the expert knowledge of my hon. Friends on many aspects of this difficult and complicated subject proves clearly that all knowledge in these matters does not reside on the other side of the House.
  It has been said that what Lancashire thinks today England will think tomorrow. Tonight it is clear that the majority of Lancashire opinion represented by my hon. Friends is very much in favour of the Government's policy and of what the Government have done in this instance to carry out their policy. I would refer for a moment to the history of the prices of raw cotton in recent times. The price was fixed in April, 1944, while the war was still on. It was not changed again until 27th May, 1946. At that time, a rise in the price of cotton was effected by the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale asked me a Question, or rather he addressed a question to my right hon. Friend, about this price change. I replied and gave him our reasons.
  The first reason, I said, was the difficulty about the overall cost of Government purchases of cotton since April, 1944. Then the hon. Member asked:
  "Does the hon. Gentleman realise that while this absolutely fortuitous system of price fixing remains in force, manufacturers ought to be entitled to know that these prices will be maintained for a considerable time?"
  To that I replied:
  "I hope they will be maintained for a considerable time, but we must naturally have regard to the movement of prices else-

  905
  where. If prices rise steeply elsewhere we may have to follow them in order not to put ourselves into the position of making losses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1598.]
  That is what I said in this House on 3rd June. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that prices would not rise for a considerable time, and I warned him that, though the Government did not wish to raise prices for a considerable time, if they rose elsewhere we might have to do so. That is precisely what has happened. Since then prices have been rising, and rising steeply, as I suggested they might do. There was an unusually small crop of cotton in the United States of America. I believe I am right in saying that in 1945 and 1946 there have been smaller crops than any since 1921, so that there was a smallness of supply of American cotton coming on the market. In June price controls were lifted in the United States of America. It is irrelevant to discuss which price controls were lifted. The point was that the lifting of the price controls and the consequent rise in prices in many commodities stimulated, in a situation where one had a short supply of cotton, a speculative boom and a very rapid rise cf prices in the American market. So, for the same reasons as I gave to the hon Member for Altrincham last June, through the rise of price against us in the American market, it became clear to us that another rise in our selling price to British spinners had become necessary. On 21st October we announced that rise in price. The interchange between myself and the hon. Member for Altrincham took place on 3rd June about a price change announced on 27th May. On 21st October we announced another price change—five months later. At that time the hon. Member for Altrincham was asking that we should allow a considerable time to elapse before any price change took place. We allowed five months to elapse before a price change took place, yet he comes to this House this evening and says he is very surprised the price change did not take place earlier—
  Sir Waldron Smithers:The hon. Gentleman said, "We allowed", but surely he is not omnipotent? Surely it is world prices that allow it? If world prices had changed earlier, he would have had to change earlier.
  Mr. Marquand:If the price were not in the control of the Board of Trade there would be no discussion and no Prayer tonight. When I say "we" I mean the Board of Trade which is responsible for the price change in the price charged by the Board of Trade to cotton spinners in this country. The peak price, as hon. Members have already said, in America for spot cotton was reached on 15th October and at that level our price to spinners would have been well below the world level. At the present time it is true that our price is slightly higher than the current American price for spot transactions, but it is not at all clear how prices will move. The hon. Member for Altrincham said he had been unable to get the latest figure. So have I, because the American market does not close until 8 p.m. and I have had no opportunity since I have been listening to the Debate to get the latest figure. The last information before I came into the House was that today the prices have been tending to move slightly upwards. Who can say that the price will continue falling in a situation where there is admittedly, and there has been admittedly for the last two years, the smallest cotton crop in the United States since 1921, and where there is an active sellers' market all over the world for cotton products.
  Who would be bold enough on the other side of the House to prophesy that the price will not rise again? Nobody can be certain, but the fundamental factors remain, and it is on the consideration of fundamental factors of that kind, on the real demand and supply for the product, that we have based our decision when we have effected these various price changes. We claim, as my hon. Friends have said, to have insulated ourselves by this means from the sharp fluctuations which have taken place elsewhere in the world. I could quote, were it worth while, but it has already been done by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, from today's newspapers, stories of the panic and dismay that has been caused in the United States of America, the panic and dismay, which, for all their misgivings about our policy, does not really affect hon. Members on the other side of this House tonight.
  In the present situation, and the way in which we handle our cotton prices, the spinners are protected. There is a

  907
  scheme—which I have no time to elaborate tonight and you, Mr. Speaker. might rule me out of Order if I were to attempt to do so—under which spinners receive adequate compensation if, as a result of a price change, they are in danger of making some loss. The spinners—as, indeed, the hon. Member for Altrincham admitted—have no complaint against us, they have voiced no complaint. The home consumers of utility cloth, though the price of the raw material from which their cloth is made has risen, are also protected because of the subsidy arrangements under which the price of that cloth is kept stable. Now it is true that that subsidy will cost the Treasury some money—
  Sir W. Smithers:The taxpayer.
  Mr. Marquand:The taxpayer. I am informed that it is estimated the Treasury will have to pay some £2 million more by way of subsidy to utility cloth up to the end of the current financial year, that is, March, 1947, under this new arrangement than it would have had to pay had no such Orders been made. However, I would assure the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) that, of course, it will be possible for him, when the Board of Trade Estimates are presented, to obtain an account of transactions of this kind, that is to say, of what the Treasury will have to pay out in this way. I shall not say here that the Treasury will necessarily be compensated by the dealings that we shall make in cotton, but it is very obvious to hon. Members that the high probability is that our transactions are not running at a loss. The foreign consumer of our products is not protected by a subsidy or by any kind of compensation arrangement; that is true, but we are operating in a sellers' market at the present time and there is no advantage to us in such a condition, where our cotton products are in tremendous demand, where we have to restrict the export of cotton products all the time because the demand is so great and we need to keep sufficient at home for our home consumers, where we are actually restricting our exports because the market is so avaricious for them—there is no advantage to us in selling cotton to the producers of those exports at less than world prices. Why should we do it?
  908
  Our prices at the moment are round about the world level. Who would suggest that, at a time when the world demand is so keen for our products, we should proceed to lower our prices to the producers of those products? But the argument in favour of the kind of policy we pursue is not based heavily upon a desire to draw some temporary advantage out of the sellers market. It is based upon two main factors. The first of them is that we intend, and we need, to maintain in the home market control of prices at which yarn and cloth are sold. We need to control those prices in order to maintain the stability of the cost of living. Business cannot satisfactorily be carried on under a condition of control of the final product, and fluctuating prices for the raw material. That is one reason why we continue this policy at the present time, and the other reason is, of course, the scarcity of foreign exchange, and particularly of dollar exchange. I suggest that it would not be wise, it would not be prudent, it may be disastrous, to permit at the present time the establishment of a system under which speculators in this country were free to buy and sell And conduct arbitrage operations in the city of New York. It would be too difficult to maintain a proper foreign exchange system and husband our very scarce resources in the form of dollars.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham, having changed his mind a little about the considerable time that had to elapse before we changed our prices, asks if we shall be tardy in lowering our prices when the time comes. We have certainly no intention of being tardy in lowering our prices. Indeed, the whole argument I have developed suggests that although we will not be guided in our policy by mere temporary fluctuations, we shall certainly adjust the price to the fundamental economic factors determining supply and demand for the product. When the downward tendency comes, it will be far easier for us to lower the price, because we have in the meantime been able to raise it, and thus accumulate some reserves against a rainy day, than if we had not taken this step at the present time. If we had not taken the step, or had delayed too long in taking that step, it might have been difficult when prices began to fall, to lower the price, because we might have been accused by the hon. Member for Altrincham or the hon. Member for

  909
  Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) of making trading losses. We have no desire to make trading losses, and have therefore taken the decision at what we conceived to be a prudent time. I assure those who feel genuinely uneasy about this matter that when the time comes we will have no hesitation in lowering our prices, but we must have regard mainly to our export markets in so doing. When the time comes, when we need to try to extend our export trade, we shall not be unaware of the need to lower our prices for raw cotton.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham rather severely criticised the methods of our bulk trading. It was the severest part of his speech. He suggested in a rather extraordinary, and certainly irresponsible passage—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh"]Wait and see. He suggested that our action at the present time was in some sort of way a retaliation for United States action in saying that in future they would prefer us to deal with private traders in our food purchase. We are not conducting our operations in so childish a way. There is no retaliation about this, and no thought of anything of the kind ever entered our minds when we made this decision. He then criticised our methods of buying, and portrayed a mythical buyer in New York with a Union Jack, instead of a waistcoat. We have no buyers in New York. We have been asked over and over again by deputations from the Liverpool Cotton Association, and spinners of Lancashire, to give the merchants some encouragement. If we have made up our minds, they say, to go in for State trading, will we give the merchants a look-in somewhere? We have answered "Yes, very well, the merchants shall continue to be used as our agent in the American and Indian markets."
  I am advised that at the present time we buy American cotton by asking the Liverpool merchants to make offers to us on behalf of American shippers. We accept such offers in such quantities as seem suitable to us. We might do better if we bought direct in the United States of America, but without committing in any way any future organisation which may come into being, and to which you, Mr. Speaker, would not permit me to make specific reference, we have committed ourselves, in the immediate present, while the Board of Trade, through its Cotton
  910
  Control, continues to buy cotton, to saying that it will do so in the United States market and the Indian market through the agency of Liverpool merchants.
  Sir W. Smithers:Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government, on their account or through their agents, have made use of any futures market, and, if so, where?
  Mr. Marquand:No, Sir. The Government are not buying or selling futures at any time. It is, of course, true that when anybody wants to buy cotton in the United States of America from American traders, those traders, in calculating the price at which they are willing to sell, take into account the futures price quoted at that time in the American market. They would be foolish if they did not, and we, in buying, would be foolish if we did not have the common sense to open our newspapers and see what American estimates of future prices was.
  Sir W. Smithers:Then why close Liverpool?
  Mr. Marquand:I have a good deal of sympathy with the plea of the hon. Member for Altrincham that under a system whereby our price for raw cotton is equivalent, or possibly may, for a fraction of time, be slightly above the price which their competitors have to pay, the spinners of Lancashire should be given abundant opportunities to buy their cotton by sample instead of on designation. I have said before, to deputations which have come from Liverpool to see me or my right hon. and learned Friend, that we want, as quickly as possible, to establish a system under which sampling will be possible. At the same time, we have promised the Liverpool interests, particularly listening to the pleas of some of the Liverpool Members of this House, that Liverpool shall continue to be the centre of operations for the buying and selling of raw cotton, and so we want to establish our provision for the inspection and sampling of cotton in Liverpool.
  Liverpool has been heavily bombed during the war, and there is a great scarcity of accommodation. It is for that reason alone that we have not yet been able to open the sampling rooms we hope to open. I am assured that before the end of the year these sampling facilities will be available. I was most careful to

  911
  ask my advisers about this undertaking. Once at this Box, in the first speech which I had the privilege of making in this House, I gave an undertaking that all the studio space available to the cinema industry would be de-requisitioned by Easter. I did it with a great deal of trepidation, but it turned out to be correct. I want to give as good an assurance tonight. My advisers have been cautious in advising me, but I may safely say that by the end of the year sampling facilities will be available, and available in Liverpool.
  I hope that I have, to the satisfaction of hon. Members, answered the points, criticisms, and questions which they have raised tonight. I would like in conclusion, if I may commit a solecism, to tell hon. Members what these Orders really are about and what it is hon. Members opposite are asking the House to do when they ask us to reject them. Direction No. 4, which is one of the Orders that we are discussing, enables a spinner to charge a price for his controlled yarn which takes account of the increased price of raw cotton. If the direction was annulled, it would mean that under the Order controlling yarn prices a spinner could charge for American type yarns only on the basis of the selling price at 27th May. No amendment to any of these Orders now under discussion would alter the selling price of cotton. The selling price of cotton is determined by entirely different methods under other powers given to the Board of Trade and not under these
  Orders would not affect the selling price of cotton. All that it would do would be to prevent a spinner charging the higher prices which he has to pay, and thus it would bring the business and industry of Lancashire to a standstill.
  I know that it is against the rules of the House to impute motives, but I cannot help wondering in my own mind just what hon. Members opposite were aiming at when they invited us to reject these Orders. Could it possibly have been that they had in mind a general attack on State trading and that certain advice, which was given to them beforehand, made them modify some of the things they intended to say? What other purpose they could have had in mind I cannot really imagine. If the House tonight accepts the Prayers placed before them, the result will be to bring industry in Lancashire to a standstill. Therefore, I invite the House to reject the Prayers.
  Question put.
  The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Noes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places. Twelve Members who challenged his decision having stood up, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the House should proceed to a Division.
  The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 169.

  Division No. 291.

  AYES

  10.00 p.m

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Grimston, R. V.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Beechman, N. A.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Renton, D.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Bower, N.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Byers, Frank

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Maude, J. C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Digby, S. W.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Turton, R. H.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Drewe, C.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Gage, C

  Poole, O. B.S. (Oswestry)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Mr. Erroll and Mr. Sutcliffe.

  NOES.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Holman, P.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  House, G.

  Reeves, J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Austin, H. L.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Rhodes, H

  Ayles, W. H.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Richards, R.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Irving, W. J.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Balfour, A.

  Janner, B.

  Robens, A.

  Barton, C.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Scollan, T.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Benson, G.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Kenyon, C

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Key, C. W.

  Simmons, C. J

  Boardman, H.

  Lavers, S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Leonard, W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Levy, B. W.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Burke, W. A.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Stamford, W

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Steele, T.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Champion, A. J.

  Lyne A W.

  Swingler S.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  McAdam, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Coldrick, W

  McAllister, G.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Collick, P.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Mack, J. D.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Thurtle, E.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  McLeavy, F.

  Tiffany, S.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Tolley, L.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Diamond, J.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Dodds, N N.

  Mathers, G.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Donovan, T.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Messer, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Walkden, E.

  Dumpleton, C W.

  Monslow, W.

  Walker, G. H.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Morley, F.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Moyle, A.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Murray, J. D.

  Weitzman, D.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Ewart, R.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  West, D. G.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Foot, M. M.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Gibson, C. W.

  Orbach, M.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Paget, R. T.

  Willey, O. G (Cleveland)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Parker, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Williams, W. F. (Heston)

  Hale, Leslie

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Williamson, T.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Pearson. A

  Woodburn, A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Proctor, W. T

  Woods, G S.

  Harrison, J

  Randall, H. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Ranger, J.

  Captain Michael Stewart and

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Rankin, J.

  Mr. Popplewell.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) (COTTONINDUSTRY)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 68) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946, No. 1679). a copy of which was presented on 23rd October, be annulled."— [Mr. Erroll. ]
  The House proceeded to a Division, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
  Captain Crookshank:May I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, and, with great humility, ask you whether the proceedings on the Division were entirely correct, because,
  914
  sitting here, what I understood happened was that the Division was challenged, the Question was put the second time, and then you announced from the Chair the names of the Tellers, after which you invited Members on this side of the House who supported the proposition to stand in their places. As I read Standing Order No. 31, with all due respect, it is that Mr. Speaker
  "may, after the lapse of two minutes, if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed, take the vote of the House, or Committee. by calling upon members who support and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or Committee, or name tellers for a division."

  915
  From that it appears that the Tellers for the Division having been named, which is the last of the choices open to the Chair, it is not then possible, as I read Standing Order No. 31, to ask Members to stand in their places. I wondered if there had been a misapprehension of the circumstances or whether a new precedent is being created tonight. I must apologise for raising this matter.
  Mr. Speaker:Tonight must not be taken as a precedent. I am not quite sure myself. I did make some inquiries, and I was not sure whether it should be done before I named the Tellers or afterwards. Tonight I think I was probably at fault but, at any rate, we may look that up later. I stand in a white sheet. I think there was only one voice saying "Aye and, therefore, I thought probably that! was entitled to ask Members to stand up, and I did so ask them. Perhaps I did so at the wrong time. We do not often have this procedure. Perhaps it might be more useful if we had it in future on these occasions.
  Captain Crookshank:I again apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for having raised the question, and I am sure that none of us really wishes to see you in a white sheet We gratefully accept your Ruling today and on every other occasion.
  Mr. Speaker:I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having brought this point to my attention because, after all, one cannot be right every time. I am always grateful to the House for bringing to my attention points of this nature, and I would like to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  AIRCRAFT (NOISE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson. ]
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Symonds:In drawing the attention of the House to the question of reducing the noise of aircraft, I am raising a matter which particularly affects my own constituency. But Questions on the Order Paper during this past year have shown quite clearly that this is a matter affecting many other constituencies in many other parts of the country. In
  916
  all quarters there is a demand that the noise of aircraft, particularly those engaged in night flying training, should be reduced. 'In East Anglia, in the flat lands there, we have a network of aerodromes, and in my own constituency, we have an elementary flying training school situated close to a built-up area. However, I have no wish to treat this as a local matter. I want to raise the question as a general one, which is having its influence on the attitude of the public in general towards aviation.
  I approach the subject as a layman. I can claim no technical knowledge of the problems involved. Perhaps that is a good thing in a sense, because it is easy to get bogged in technicalities. I wish to deal with it solely as a matter of public policy. No one denies that we owed our survival in the recent war very largely to our power in the air, to our aircraft; never forgetting, of course, the men who flew them, the men who kept them in the air and the men who built them. In the war, everything had to be subordinated to speed, power and efficiency, and the public put up with the noise quite cheerfully, because they realised it was all in a good cause. But the situation today is not quite the same. We have won the war; Service flying as such is being considerably reduced, and we are attempting to build up a system of civil aviation. I want to see that use of civil aviation increased; I think this country can have a great future in the air, but it can only have that future if aviation has the support of the citizens of this country. At the moment I fear the average man in the street has a great prejudice against the aircraft which fly over his head. At the moment the average man tends to regard the aeroplane as a curse rather than a blessing, because inevitably it disturbs his peace and quiet. As I say he put up with noise cheerfully during the war, but the war being over, he does look forward to enjoying a good night's rest.
  Turning to the question of the noise itself, to me it seems a very curious situation in which this can happen: It is a punishable offence for a man to drive a 10 horsepower car past my door without a silencer, but it is perfectly legal, and is not a punishable offence for that same man, if I happen to live on the edge of an airfield, to take off just over my roof top in an aircraft trainer of perhaps 100 horsepower, or a medium plane of 1,000

  917
  horsepower or a multi-engined plane of 10,000 horsepower without any silencer at all. If the car has to be silenced, why not the plane? Here, aircraft technicians come in and raise objections, and say that such a thing is quite impossible. We are told that a silencer reduces the power of an engine; we are told that it is at the very moment of taking off that an aircraft needs most power, and, therefore, if we silence the engine the result would be, either to make the take off more dangerous because there would be less resultant power, or else, because of lightening the load, the whole business would become uneconomical.
  There is also now the further complication of the use of jet aircraft. We are reminded also that the noise involved does not come merely from the engine, but from the plane itself and the propeller. Without understanding all the technicalities involved, I do appreciate that these are difficulties. But I would suggest that our wartime experience of achieving the apparently impossible should give us hope that even these technical problems can be solved if they are tackled drastically.
  I should like my hon. Friend who is to reply to say what is being done and what has been done in research into this problem. I found it very difficult indeed to obtain information of any work going on. I have heard that there was a period of experiment in the late 'twenties and early 'thirties. I have heard of experiments at Heston with a German Klemm, using a long exhaust pipe and a Burgess silencer. I was also told that in the early 'thirties, at the Hendon air display, a Fairey 3F was tried out, which was very impressive. I believe that before the war the Air Ministry made certain experiments with training planes—for instance, fitting exhaust pipes pointing upwards over the top of the aircraft instead of downwards, so that the plane itself acted as a sort of buffer between the noise and the ground. Cambridge University Air Squadron had a Tiger Moth on which they fitted some sort of exhaust pipe. I drew the attention of the Air Ministry to this in April this year and I received eventually a letter in these terms:
  "Flying Training Command have been carrying out comparative trials over their own headquarters, sending up Tiger Moths with and without exhaust tail pipes. Unfortunately, however, they have reached the conclusion that there is no appreciable diminution of the noise, whether or not the aircraft is fitted with
  918
  these pipes, and they have gone so far as to say that the ear simply cannot distinguish the difference. They have, therefore, decided not to pursue the matter, bearing in mind the extra cost which would be involved to no purpose."
  In other words, after what was perhaps a limited kind of experiment they simply washed their hands of the whole problem and gave it up. Aeroplanes were sent up with and without exhaust pipes. The listeners on the ground said to one another, "Can you hear any difference?" "No." "Let's go and have a drink." And that was the end of it. I do not think that that indicates that the problem has been tackled really seriously.
  I should like to know what kind of research is going on at the moment. I rather suspect that research into this problem is really the Cinderella of aeronautical research, and that the concentration is on speed and power, with no thought for the civilian on the ground suffering from the noise. But the feeling of the general public must be taken into account. There is, at the moment, still a feeling in many people's minds that civil aviation is the rich man's hobby which the ordinary man in the street cannot afford; and so we get the feeling that the airborne plutocrat gaily flies into the air, ignoring the discomfort of the less affluent and grounded man in the street. I do not think this is fully true, or need be true, particularly when we remember the prewar flying clubs, such as the Civil Aviation Service Corps, which, I was told, consisted very largely of London busmen and motor mechanics, and so on, and did invaluable work in the days just before the war, in producing the very men who saved our bacon in 1940.
  I should like to see aircraft, and civil aircraft, used much more by the ordinary people of this country, but unless and until their prejudice against this form of travel is overcome, we shall not see that development. The people directly concerned with the industry are very much involved in this problem. The Aerodrome Owners' Association, for instance, which represents all commercial and municipal airports, I understand, has made frequent appeals to the Air Ministry that this problem should be tackled. The general public dislike having airports inside towns and close to centres of population, but from the airport owners' point of view, they would naturally like to be close in to the towns to prevent the

  919
  present waste of time spent travelling from the centre of a town or city to an airport. Logically, for quick travelling, the air terminals should be in the centres of population, but unless this noise problem is tackled, the general public will object to that.
  How should research into this matter be undertaken, and by whom? We might say that after a certain date all aircraft would be grounded unless they achieved a certain standard of silencing, but obviously that is impossible. Individuals cannot afford it, and groups of people cannot afford it. No firm could take on a job of this kind; only the Government, with their powers of setting research going, could do it. It will, I think, involve large scale research, but I am not put off by that consideration. During the war we wanted a floating harbour, and eventually we were given the Mulberry. Similarly, a real drive into this problem could produce a more silent plane. I am not asking for the moon; I do not expect a completely silent plane. That may well be impossible, but 1 do think that if our researchers were given their head, they could produce a much more silent plane than we have now, with the result that we might eventually be able to pass a law saying that after a certain date, all types of aircraft produced would have to comply with certain standards of silencing and that all existing types would have to be modified according to those standards within a period of years.
  One word about the international aspect of this matter. It may be objected that if we alone concentrated upon this problem, particularly if it involved any reduction in power through using silencers, it might be a handicap to us in the world aspect of civil aviation. We might find ourselves handicapped as against other countries who are more prepared than ourselves to put up with noise. I do not necessarily accept that if this problem is really tackled thoroughly, it will involve a reduction of power; it may be so or it may not. I do not think it is possible to answer that question yet. Nor do I say that it necessarily follows that other countries are completely indifferent to noise. I would like to quote from a paper called "American Aviation," of 1st August this year. Under the heading: "Call for research to reduce aircraft noise," it says:
  920
  "Mr. T. P. Wright, C.A.A. administrator, has invited the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics Air Transport Association and the Aircraft Industries Association to participate in a joint attack on the problem of aircraft noise. In his call for an integrated research programme he pointed to a rising tide of public complaint 'which threatens to undermine aviation progress.'"
  That is the situation in America. I suggest that that is the situation here now—
  a rising tide of public complaint which threatens to undermine aviation progress."
  Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government will tackle this problem drastically as only the Government can. We want this country to be air-minded, but unless and until the hostility and prejudice of the man in the street are overcome, we cannot expect him to welcome the extension and development of this form of travel.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling:I am all for reducing noise, but I remember that when I was at the Air Ministry a year or so before the war, I introduced a deputation from the Noise Abatement League on this subject, and we were told that the main cause of aircraft noise was the propellers, which it was impossible to silence, and that the additional noise caused by the engines made very little difference. As the noise of the propellers is greater than the noise of the engines a reduction in engine noise would have very little effect on the whole volume of noise. Two pigs squealing under a gate do not make twice as much noise as one pig, but only a small percentage more. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether this is still the case or whether there has been further research which gives hope of reducing the noise made by aircraft.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Stubbs:I wish to support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds). For my part, I do not think that any airports should be permitted near a built-up area. One airport in my constituency is close to a built-up area, where a large number of railwaymen and other workers are employed. When the aircraft leave the airport, the noise they make when they roar over the roofs means that the workers cannot get their proper rest, and because of that, they are not fit for their work. I would call atten-

  921
  tion also to the effect on nervous women and children, and on those who are ill, when these aircraft roar overhead. It happens just as much on a Sunday as on any other day and something should be done about it, with particular regard to the question of the building of airports close to built-up areas. Local authorities feel that the airport should be stationed at least ten miles from the town. I have been fined for riding a motor-bicycle with a noisy silencer, and if that can be applied to a motor bicycle, why not to aircraft? The suggestion seems to be that in a university town one must not disturb the undergraduates at their studies, but that when it comes to the case of the workers, it is a different thing. I hope we shall hear from the Minister that it is the Government's intention to attend to this matter.
  10.34 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Woodburn):I think the House will have been interested in this rather novel question. The prevalence of noise is a matter that has disturbed the community very much in the past, but this time we are dealing with a new noise, a noise that is different. We live in a world of noise, and it is curious that while it is railway workers who are objecting to the noise of aircraft, they themselves do not hear the engines, the whistles, and the other railway noises and claim that they work quite unheeding of them. It is a physical thing, I think, this capacity for ignoring noises to which one has grown accustomed. The first time you listen to a gramophone record with a crack in it it is a terrible scraping sound which you feel you are unable to stand, but after two or three repetitions you get used to it. Then there are people who turn on a wireless set, and then start a conversation to drown the wireless, or who talk with the wireless going on, as a background. The noise that is objected to is the new noise, the one we do not like, and the one we are not expecting to hear. I sympathise very much with the hon. Member who raised this matter and with the railway workers. I am certain indeed that the people in East Anglia will be very glad if they never hear the noise of aircraft again, after the very trying experiences they had during the war. Noise has a psychological effect on people who have been subjected to heavy aeroplane raids, which one does not find to the same
  922
  extent in an area where an aircraft is a comparative novelty, an object of the same interest to children as railway engines used to be.
  This problem has been under continual observation, but I regret I cannot give a satisfactory answer to the plea put up by my hon. Friends. They used the analogy of a car on the ground, but the car on the ground gives its noise from the exhaust, and if the main noise of an aeroplane came from the exhaust, it might be possible, by the experiments to which the hon. Member referred, to eliminate it. Experiments have been made to take the exhaust up over the wing, and lift it upwards and so direct it away from the ground, but this has only eliminated the lesser not the greater noise. That is the reason why experiments in eliminating the noise of exhausts have had no effect whatever in lessening the general disturbance, because in aircraft the main noise comes from the tip of the propeller blade which is breaking up the air. One cannot have propellers that give safe speeds without having the sound waves which cause this considerable disturbance. The question is: Can the noise of propellers be eliminated? So far, science has found no way of eliminating the noise of propeller blades. In regard to civil aircraft, a law has been laid down limiting the speed of propellers to something under 700 feet per second in the cruising position, with a view to lessening the noise. That has been done more with a view to make travel in aircraft comfortable, than from the point of view of people living in the vicinity of the noise.
  The noise of an aircraft rising from the ground is much greater than it is in the air for the simple reason that the engines are "revved up" and "boosted" very considerably in order to lift the aircraft off the ground. Some experiments have been carried out to see whether the noise that does come from the propellers, and in the case of the jet aircraft, from the jet, can be diverted away from houses by directing it upwards. In the case of jet engines on test beds, we have been making experiments to see whether we cannot divert the noise upwards away from the houses, so that the noise will be less disturbing. I cannot claim that they have been terribly successful so far, but there is a considerable prospect, I think, of development along that line.

  923
  With regard to aircraft starting up on an airfield and "revving up" their engines, this does cause a terrible noise, and the only way I have suggested in which the noise might be lessened in the case of the aircraft "revving up" is by putting them in such a position that there are baffle walls to prevent the noise waves from reaching the public of the surrounding area with the same intensity as they would from an open field. In some such way it might be possible to arrange "revving up" so that a silencer is imposed from outside, and not from the inside of the aircraft. Experiments will be carried out in regard to that. Professor Cave-Browne-Cave has been doing a lot of experiment in measurement of noise, and something may result from his researches which will help to solve the problem. The main hope is in the diversion, rather than in the suppression of noise. The first element in aircraft must be safety and, as the hon. Member has said, we cannot subordinate safety to silence. The main danger in aircraft is during the take-off. At that moment it is necessary to have the maximum of power, and we cannot take the risk of suppressing any power, until such time as there is a sufficient margin.
  We come now to the jet. The noise of the jet is a different kind of noise—a whine—and there is a possibility that we might raise the frequency of the whine to such an extent that people would not hear it. But that introduces the danger
  924
  of physical repercussions more serious than just a noise in the head. It might set up vibrations of which one would be unconscious at the time. It has not always been possible to eliminate noise. It is a hundred years now since the railways were developed and nobody has found a way of silencing them, and it may be that we shall get used to the aeroplane noise, as we have got used to that of the railway. I assure both my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that experiments are going ahead as hard as we can, but science knows no general way in which the noise can be suppressed. As to the calculation made by the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the multiplication of noises I think it is probably true that if you put one noise on top of another noise—
  Mr. Keeling:But cannot you measure noise?
  Mr. Woodburn:Professor Cave-Browne-Cave is trying to measure noise and ascertain the direction and radiation of noise and it might be that by finding what direction noise takes, we should be more successful than we have been in trying to eliminate the noise itself. It may be that noise upon noise does not multiply noise. It may indeed be that it will be possible to produce a musical noise which will be quite pleasant to hear.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

EDUCATION
  Administrative Memorandum
  Administrative Memorandum
POST OFFICE
  Air Mail Rates
  Air Mail Rates
  Express Letters (Delivery)
  Express Letters (Delivery)
  Delayed Mail (Nigeria)
  Delayed Mail (Nigeria)
  Sub-Postmasters (Pay and Conditions)
  Sub-Postmasters (Pay and Conditions)
  Savings Bank (Interest Return)
  Savings Bank (Interest Return)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Supplementary Pensions
  Supplementary Pensions
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  POLICE (TEMPORARY CONSTABLES)
  POLICE (TEMPORARY CONSTABLES)
  GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS (DOGS, INSPECTION)
  GREYHOUND RACING TRACKS (DOGS, INSPECTION)
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS (CONVICTION)
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS (CONVICTION)
  PRISONS (MAINTENANCE COSTS)
  PRISONS (MAINTENANCE COSTS)
  REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  DEPORTATION ORDER (POLISH CITIZEN)
  DEPORTATION ORDER (POLISH CITIZEN)
  N.F.S. (JOINT COUNCIL)
  N.F.S. (JOINT COUNCIL)
  UNEMPLOYED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
  UNEMPLOYED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Allowance (Deferred Repairs)
  Tax Allowance (Deferred Repairs)
  Central Office of Information
  Central Office of Information
  Members of Parliament (Income Tax Assessment)
  Members of Parliament (Income Tax Assessment)
  Bulk Purchasing (Business Loss)
  Bulk Purchasing (Business Loss)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Imports (Per Head Value)
  Imports (Per Head Value)
  Cable and Wireless, Ltd. (Directors, Compensation)
  Cable and Wireless, Ltd. (Directors, Compensation)
  OFFICIAL WAR REPORTS
  OFFICIAL WAR REPORTS
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
HOUSING
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
  Hove
  Hove
  Reigate District
  Reigate District
  Aged People
  Aged People
  Military Camp, Ramsey
  Military Camp, Ramsey
  Furnished Houses
  Furnished Houses
  Aluminium Houses
  Aluminium Houses
  Central Heating
  Central Heating
  Rent Restriction
  Rent Restriction
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Returns
  Returns
  Softwood Shortage
  Softwood Shortage
  Wandsworth
  Wandsworth
  District Heating
  District Heating
  Private Building
  Private Building
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Mentally Defective, Cheshire
  Mentally Defective, Cheshire
  Streptomycin
  Streptomycin
  Cancer (Radioactive Substances)
  Cancer (Radioactive Substances)
  Rural Water Supplies
  Rural Water Supplies
  Central Medical War Committee
  Central Medical War Committee
  Physiotherapy
  Physiotherapy
  Alien Doctors
  Alien Doctors
  Hospital Patients (Per Head Cost)
  Hospital Patients (Per Head Cost)
  Maternity Hospital, Stroud
  Maternity Hospital, Stroud
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Smoke Abatement
  Smoke Abatement
  Poor Law Institution Inmates (Per Head Cost)
  Poor Law Institution Inmates (Per Head Cost)
  Chase Farm Hospital
  Chase Farm Hospital
  DAY NURSERIES
  DAY NURSERIES
  GERMANY (STEELWORKS, BRITISH ZONE)
  GERMANY (STEELWORKS, BRITISH ZONE)
  PRODUCTION DRIVE (INCENTIVES)
  PRODUCTION DRIVE (INCENTIVES)
BRITISH ARMY
  Trumpeters (Albert Hall Meeting)
  Trumpeters (Albert Hall Meeting)
  Stores, Singapore
  Stores, Singapore
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (WOMEN)
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (WOMEN)
  JAPANESE INDUSTRIES
  JAPANESE INDUSTRIES
  LONDON PLANNING (LAINDON AND PITSEA)
  LONDON PLANNING (LAINDON AND PITSEA)
  PESTS (DESTRUCTION)
  PESTS (DESTRUCTION)
  BATTERIES (LEAD ALLOCATION)
  BATTERIES (LEAD ALLOCATION)
  GLEN AFFRIC (HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT)
  GLEN AFFRIC (HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT)
  NUREMBERG TRIALS
  NUREMBERG TRIALS
RAILWAYS
  Slip Carriages
  Slip Carriages
  Services
  Services

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Keyes—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Westwood, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate with amendments enactments relating to authorities for the purposes of local government in Scotland; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Eighth Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—War memorial.
The Committee proposed that the Duke of Wellington, Viscount Esher, Lord Methuen, together with the Earl of Ancaster (Lord Great Chamberlain) and two Peers to be nominated by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition respectively, be asked to represent the House of Lords in a discussion with members of the House of Commons to consider proposals for a joint war memorial.
2.—Retirement of Office Assistant.
The Committee sanctioned a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Act, 1935, to Mr. Harold Lionel Hale Maynard, office assistant, who retires voluntarily on 31st October 1946, after 13 completed years' service.
3.—Reporting Staff.
The Committee approved the proposed contract with Messrs. H. Craig-Kelly Limited for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates.
4.—Librarian's Department.
The Committee considered the revision of the salary scales of the Librarian and Assistant
922
Librarian and referred the matter to a Sub-Committee consisting of the Earl of Drogheda, Lord Macmillan and Lord Henderson with the Clerk of the Parliaments to settle the matter with the Treasury.
5.—Gratuity to Legal Personal Representative of Porter.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, to the legal personal representative of Mr. Christopher Elias Grimsey, an established porter in the Department of the Lord Great Chamberlain, whose death occurred on 6th September, 1946.
6.—Offer of Drawings of the late Sir George Clausen.
The Committee instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to communicate with the executors of the late Sir George Clausen regretting that the Committee were unable to accept their kind offer owing to lack of accommodation in the building.
7.—Divisions.
The Committee recommended that when a division is called in the House, the interval of time between the order "Clear the Bar" and the Question being finally put, should be extended from two minutes to four minutes. This procedure to be in force while the House is sitting in its present Chamber.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, there are two points in this Report to which I might very shortly draw your attention. The first is in connexion with the Parliamentary war memorial. Your Lordships may remember that Mr. Speaker asked that a certain number of members of this House should be nominated to take part in discussions with Members of the House of Commons about the memorial. The recommendation of the Committee is that the Duke of Wellington, Viscount Esher, Lord Methuen and the Earl of Ancaster, the Lord Great Chamberlain, should be asked to represent the House together with two Peers nominated respectively by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. The two Peers so nominated are Viscount Stansgate and Lord Denham. So, if the House agrees with our Report, these six Peers will represent the House at the joint discussions.
The other point is about Divisions. Experience has shown that two minutes is not sufficient time to ensure that every

923
Peer who wishes to vote reaches the Division Lobby in time while we are sitting in this Chamber. The recommendation of the Committee is that the time should be extended to four minutes while we are here. I imagine that we shall return to the period of two minutes when we go back to our own Chamber. That recommendation, if it is approved, will need an alteration in Standing Order No. XXXII. I ask the House to agree to this Report and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I hope that I may be allowed to say a word or two, at this stage, about next week's business. On Tuesday, the House will meet at the usual time, and the Roosevelt Memorial Bill will be taken. I hope your Lordships will agree that it shall be taken through all its stages on that day. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate how appropriate and acceptable it would be if we had a good attendance on that occasion.
On Wednesday, owing to the arrangements made for discussion of the matter raised in connexion with Germany, which was postponed recently, I think that the only way to get through our business will be to ask the House to meet at half past eleven to consider the message from the Commons on the Lords Amendments to the National Health Service Bill. In the afternoon there will be the discussion on Germany on Motions by Lord Saltoun and Lord Beveridge. I might also say that it is hoped that that discussion will be terminated by about five o'clock, as the Royal Commission is expected before six o'clock, when the Royal Assent to various Acts will be given, followed, it is expected, by the Prorogation of Parliament. I am sure your Lordships will not take it amiss if I remind those who wish to speak, that it would be convenient if speakers were not too long, so that we were able to finish the debate at the time I have mentioned.
924
The new Session will begin by the opening of Parliament by the King in person on the morning of Tuesday, November 12. As your Lordships are aware, the debate on the Address will be moved and seconded by members on this side of the House, and the usual practice for your Lordships is that the debate on the Address is concluded on that day.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and in regard to what he said about the Roosevelt Memorial Bill we are absolutely fully in accord with him. As to the debate on the Address I should like it to be left over at this stage as to whether we should be content with only one day. I think it may be quite probable that we shall ask for more than one day.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I quite understand, and if so we would, of course, seek to meet the convenience of the House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL.
4.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships may remember that, on the last occasion when it was under consideration, we had some discussion arising on an Amendment in the name of Viscount Cecil of Chelwood as to whether or not we should try to alter the Bill in some respect to deal with deafness. I do not wish your Lordships to think, because we have not brought forward any suggestion for an alteration to-day, that we have not been into this matter very carefully. I say, frankly, that I am very, very sorry that we have not been able to make the necessary Amendment.
I say it for three reasons. First of all, I always particularly like, if I can, to oblige the noble Viscount. That, no doubt, is a very inadequate reason, but still it is a real one. Secondly, I am reaching an age when, I must admit, I am not quite sure that I am not beginning to get a little deaf myself. At any rate, it seems to me that counsel do not speak up like they used to do when I was a young man at the Bar! That also is an improper

925
reason. The proper reason is that I do believe that there is, to-day, a vast amount of unhappiness caused by deafness which, if it is not preventable, can at least be alleviated by modern scientific methods. Therefore I should have very much liked to be able to put something in the Bill about it. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that, having done the best I can and having used such small ingenuity as I have, I cannot see how to do it.
The noble Viscount wanted a provision to go in Clause 41 which is a clause dealing with supplementary services. I am afraid there is nothing supplementary about this at all. This matter of the ear is not in the least like the matter of the eye. In regard to the eye, if you want to get a pair of spectacles—which, after all, is more or less a standard article, although, of course, you can go gay about the setting and have tortoiseshell or something of that sort if you like—there are numbers of people, called I think ophthalmic opticians, who are highly skilled in measuring refractions (if that be the correct way of putting it) and can tell you what spectacles you ought to use. I should without hesitation go to one of those people if I found that I wanted a pair of spectacles. But I am bound to say that if I had anything the matter with my ear, I should dislike intensely going to someone who was not a properly qualified doctor.
I remember once, some years ago, having the duty of cross-examining a witness before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. He was explaining to us how he could cure deafness by manipulation. It appeared that it was done by his little finger, and he was explaining how he inserted the little finger into the eustachian tube. I was looking forward to a good afternoon's cross-examination. I expected to hear—and no doubt should have heard—that his finger came out the other end, rather like a ferret out of a rabbit hole. Unfortunately, it was more than Lord Dawson could bear, and taking a match he asked the man: "Do you know what the size of the eustachian tube is?" Thereupon the man stated that the ferret had never entered the tube at all! It seems wrong that intricate mechanism such as the eustachian tube should be subject to the mercy of people not qualified to deal with
926
it. Therefore, it seems quite impossible to say that there is any analogue between those who deal with ears and opticians with regard to glasses.
If ears could not come as a supplementary service, they should come as part of the general hospital service, under Clause 3 where the Minister is under a duty, in subsection (1) (b) to provide for "medical, nursing and other services required at or for the purposes of hospitals," and, under subsection (1) (c), "the services of specialists, whether at a hospital, a health centre...or a clinic." If I were to put in particularly deafness then various noble Lords would want to put in other things particularly. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Horder, who is not here, would want to put in rheumatism, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, tuberculosis; and other of your Lordships would want to put in various other things, until we had set out a whole chain and achieved, nothing. I came to the conclusion that that was impossible, and having discussed this matter with the Minister I am afraid that the best I can do is this (I am reading his words):
"I suggest, therefore that you should repeat on Thursday my definite assurance that a comprehensive service will, and must, include provision for deafness".
By that, my Lords, I mean not merely the trained assistants who would be required, but I mean the provision of those instruments which can, to some extent, at any rate, alleviate the distress and worry caused by deafness.
I was impressed by what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said about the exploitation which is going on to-day—the system whereby various people are concerned to sell for the highest possible price instruments which have very little effect. It may be that that is brought about by the fact that we are reluctant to bring from America other instruments and to use our precious dollars. It is a matter, however, which I might well take up with the President of the Board of Trade, and I give you an assurance that I shall do so. I regard it as most important that we should do everything we can at the earliest possible time, to produce in as large numbers as possible the best scientific instruments which we can, to allow no exploitation by anybody, but to make them available to the public free of charge.

927
So much for that matter. For the rest, there are a fed other matters with which I want to deal. I am very grateful to your Lordships for the constructive way in which you have helped me to discuss this Bill. I say quite frankly, that I followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who said it was such a good Bill that we need not be 'the least ashamed of considering Amendments to it. I hope your Lordships will not think, because the Minister authorizes us to discuss the matter, and to accept Amendments, that thereby he is showing any weakening or lack of resolution or lack of courage, or anything of that sort. On the contrary, by allowing me, as far as I can, to meet the wishes of your Lordships, I think that the Minister is showing his good sense and good judgment. It is not a matter, I repeat, whereby hereafter any one Party is to seek credit—at least, I hope not—that some of these Amendments are made. If that should happen, it would make my position in regard to future Bills before your Lordships quite impossible.
For the rest, some of the alterations—the main part of the alterations—which your Lordships have suggested, and which I have accepted, are those which had the effect of writing into the Bill an undertaking which the Minister had given but which was not written in the Bill. An illustration of that is the case of the denominational hospitals. There was a good deal to be said for writing into the Bill what I regard, and many of your Lordships regard, as a very important matter. I need hardly assure your Lordships that the administration of the matter by the Minister will be in no niggardly or reluctant spirit.
So far as endowments are concerned, here again I am very glad to think that we have been able to hit upon a method which meets the general wishes of your Lordships. It does not interfere with the broad general principle, that endowments are to be devoted generally to all hospitals, but it does protect those specific endowments intended for some particular purposes. I think it is a good thing, too, that the powers of the hospital management committee should have been set out in the way that they are in the Bill. I am very anxious that everybody should understand that the hospital management committees will have a real job of work
928
to do. We want to get—and we rely on getting—the very best people that we can on to the hospital management committees. They need not hesitate to come for fear that if they do they will be mere cyphers, without a real job of work to do.
With regard to discovery of documents in the event of litigation, I may be right or I may be wrong but, personally, I take the view that we had already safeguarded the position. Other noble Lords took a different view and there was no reason why we should not make plain what we had intended. We have made one alteration of real substance. It affects only a limited time—the time between the appointed day and the passing of the Act. It may be an interval as long as eighteen months. The Minister had already arranged that, after the appointed day, endowments given to a particular hospital should not be taken away from that hospital. What we have done is to extend that principle to the interval of time directly after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
I confess that I think the Bill has two blemishes. I think your Lordships were wrong in saying that no part of a doctor's remuneration should be by way of salary. May I tell your Lordships why, from my particular angle, I feel that very strongly? No one could have been, as I have been, Minister of National Insurance, without realizing that the success or failure of all our schemes depends in a very large measure on our getting satisfactory certification. If we are going to have lax—still more, dishonest—certification, then all our schemes are going to break down on that rock. I have a most profound regard for the medical profession, and for their standard of honour, but I am bound to tell your Lordships that I did come across cases—not many—where there were two competing doctors, where one was strict with his certification and the other was lax. The people who were on the panel of the strict doctor were inclined to leave that panel and to go on the panel of the lax doctor, not because the lax doctor was a better doctor, but because from the lax doctor they could more easily get certificates.
If you had abolished this per capita payment altogether and made it a straight out-and-out salary, of course, that temptation would have gone. But I do not for a moment suggest that. That would have brought in other troubles of all sorts and

929
it would not have been practical politics. But to the extent that you would have alleviated this treatment, by giving something in the way of salary, would, I believe, have been a very valuable thing. It is my sincere and honest belief that your Lordships have made a very great mistake in taking that line.
The other blemish, as I see it, is the blemish which results from his special treatment of London. There is an old saying that "hard cases make bad law." I say quite frankly that I have no doubt that any organization which is fortunate enough to have the enthusiastic support of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is going to be a pretty efficient organization. He combines the wisdom and the stateliness which we associate with a great banker, with the enthusiasm of youth; and he has, I feel, a very considerable disregard for what I may call "red tape," a point of view with which I humbly sympathize. Hard cases do make bad law, but just because the administration of the health services in his particular borough are, as I am sure they are, exceedingly efficient, it does not really deal with the question whether they would be more efficient if you are going to spread that system throughout London. As I have told your Lordships, I believe it is a very great pity that health service (should be split between two authorities, part of them being the concern of borough councils and part of them the concern of county councils, because as your Lordships will remember, the Amendment of the noble Lord does not seek to transfer to the borough councils all the new powers. It seeks to transfer to the borough councils the powers they already have with perhaps some slight extension.
I dare say I overstated it before. I do not want to overstate it now. Home nursing goes rather farther now than before. But substantially he seeks to retain the existing powers. I. think perhaps I went too far in saying that no Minister had ever agreed to this, because I think it is a fact that Mr. Willink, at any rate, in his negotiations, did agree to this, but certainly—I think I was concerned with this matter from its earliest days to the very end of the Coation—I can say sincerely I never heard such a suggestion. So far as I knew, we always thought that, whatever else you did, you must have all these services dealt with and provided by
930
one authority. Therefore I think it right to say I think this is a pity.
For the rest, may I just say this? We do preserve—and I hope the public will realize this—the absolute right of choice of doctor. We are not going to force anybody to take any doctor he or she does not like. May I say it is plain that we are not going to move people about. Nurses are apprehensive that they may be moved to any part of the region. That is not so. If they have a contract to serve in a particular place, they can only be called upon to serve in that place. May I conclude with this word? There is still a great need for well-disposed people to help—there will always be that need—by their money and by their service. I believe under the new scheme, although the construction is very different, that there will be great scope for voluntary service, and I hope that the passing of this Bill into an Act of Parliament, if that does take place, will not prevent that voluntary service from being forthcoming.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.25 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the speech which he has just delivered. We are also grateful to the Government—and I do not merely mean the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, but also the Minister of Health himself—for the way in which they have met what I venture to think were the constructive proposals which we put forward. They were put forward not with a view to ruining this Bill, or in any way making it in-effective, but in order to make it more workable, as we thought, than it was when it came to this House.
There is really no need in a case like this for either House to think that they have all the knowledge in the world. Different views are expressed in the two Houses, and so long as we continue to have, as I hope we always shall, our two Chambers, we should be prepared, when constructive arguments and suggestions are put, in whichever House, to adopt them if they are reasonably practicable. I certainly do not think that any lack of courage is shown by any Minister who

931
accepts Amendments; I think exactly the reverse is the case. It is always much more courageous to say: "That is right and I will accept it; I think it is good sense," rather than rest on one's laurels in the knowledge that one enjoys a large majority in another place and, as a result, have a Bill which is not as good as that which we think the Minister has got from this House.
I think that in our six days' work on this Bill we have effected some improvements—nothing quite so earth-shaking as happened, we are told in the first chapter of Genesis, when the whole world was created in six days. Nevertheless, some quite good improvements have been made in the Bill in this House. For one thing, we have made certain that a doctor—whether acting in an honorary capacity or not—who serves on the staff of one hospital may get his patient admitted or may even treat him in another hospital. I think that is important. It is important because in a lot of these small hospitals in the country there is no resident stall. For a long time the doctors in the locality have all acted in an honorary capacity, and followed their patients and indeed treated other people's patients in that hospital. Although I quite agree that we should have a large hospital unit, I am one of those who hope that we shall not have, as a result of this Bill, the closing down of those smaller hospitals in the country towns, which will still have their function to perform in attending to the minor type of ailments that do not need the special treatment of the larger regional hospitals.
I think, too, with the Lord Chancellor, that the provisions we have been able to put in the Bill with regard to endowments are an improvement. I was fearful—and I know those who have taken a great interest in the voluntary hospital were also fearful—that if in the interim stage nobody knew quite where their capital donation, whether left by will or by gift, was going, they would cancel it. Clause 59 as it came to us would not be much good unless some provision were made for that interim period as well. The Amendment will allow of this continuity of voluntary gift, to which the Lord Chancellor has recently referred. I am grateful to the Government for drafting an Amendment—because a lot of
932
us did not know whether a satisfactory one could be drafted—dealing with endowments given for a special purpose, especially gifts which commemorate either a class of persons such as those who died in the war, or a particular person. I think we now have a satisfactory provision to see that that continuity of memory is maintained in a hospital which has had some donations made for a specific purpose or purposes.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House wanted to see the hospital management committees given a better function in the Bill as printed, and the words that they will now "control and manage" seem to have met us on that point. I think it is all-important that these bodies should not represent mere titles, but should be bodies with obvious powers, otherwise you will not get the kind of people serving on them who have served our hospitals in the past. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the matter of the disclosure and production of documents. I was one of those who did not think that was covered in the Bill. I thought that when it was stated you could sue a hospital, putting these actual words in and leaving out words about disclosure and production, it probably was not covered in the case of an action where the hospital was not a party, but where the documents in its possession were most important for the patient or other person suing, probably a surgeon there, in respect of something that had happened in hospital. Now we have resolved the doubt, and I am quite satisfied the words that have been accepted by the Government are all that we want in that direction.
I am obliged for the assurance we have had in this House on two points. One is that the doctors will be given adequate time before the appointed day to know what their conditions are. I think that is all-important. We were also given an assurance that dentists would be allowed to have their names on two lists, so that a patient from a different area could still continue to go to a dentist although he might not be in that particular area. Another thing, too, I think has been of use; because you must remember that the whole of this vast health service is not going to be operated by a Minister or by a person who is always looking up old copies of Hansard. That is that where a new partner is coming into a partnership the existing people in that partner-

933
ship shall be consulted, and that in a proper case a relative—I am not talking about nepotism, but a proper case such as that of a son—should be given a reasonable opportunity of succeeding to the practice that has been built up.
We were also right in putting in the provisions that we have done in regard to appearances before the Tribunal who decides whether a doctor should be taken off the list or not. I felt there was quite a lot to be said for the Minister, who, after all, has the responsibility of the whole of this Health Service, having the ultimate word as to whether a person should continue to serve in it or not, and not leaving it to a Judge of the High Court. But I think we have greatly improved this measure by providing that a man who might lose the whole of his livelihood through a decision of this Tribunal, or of the person appointed by the Minister to hear the appeal, shall be entitled to be represented by counsel or a solicitor, to call evidence and to produce what documents he likes. Another improvement is the provision that the chairman of this Tribunal shall be a barrister or a solicitor of at least ten years' standing, and that if the person coming before it so desires the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be held in public. It is, I think, one of the best safeguards of our legal system that, except in the rarest possible cases where official secrets are concerned, the hearing of any of these Courts must be in public.
We are all obliged that the Government saw their way to put into the measure itself the assurance the Minister has given with regard to hospitals connected with some religious denomination. It is important that on boards of management and in the hospital management committees some consideration should be given to the kind of people who worked on them before. If it were a Catholic hospital, or whatever it is, it should, if possible, still be staffed and managed by a certain number of people associated with that religion. There are two other small matters to which I would like to refer, if I may. As regards the rather wide draft we found of what the powers of the Minister were to alter, of his own volition, the Act or regulations under it, I think we were right to restrict this to the purposes for which the particular section was really meant to apply. I think we were right to
934
restrict the power to lay down in regulations the terms and conditions of officers of local authorities to those who were concerned with the health services, and not to leave it of so general a character as it was in the Bill originally.
Now I come to three other matters, one of which I am glad to think that the noble and learned Lord did not refer to as a blemish on the Bill. That was an Amendment which made these management committees capable of suing and of being sued. Whether or not that is generally advisable, I am one of those who hold strongly that it is, because that alone could give them a status which they ought to have. Amendments were put in the Bill to allow them to have endowments transferred directly to them to carry on for a specific purpose, and it is quite clear that if that is going to be enforced and dealt with under the Act, it must be possible, if they are not fulfilling that function, for somebody to take them before the Court, to compel them-to apply those endowments in the proper way. Therefore, I hope that that particular Amendment can now be a part of the Bill, and will finally come before us in that form.
I come to what the noble and learned Lord said he thought were the two blemishes now in the Bill. He is quite justified in considering them blemishes because he voted against them going through, just as I am justified in thinking they are improvements because I happened to vote the other way. I understand that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is about to address your Lordships on the Amendment in regard to the London boroughs. I will not therefore take very much time over this particular point because the noble Lord has such a far greater authority on the matter than I have. It does seem to me that there is a difference between these vast boroughs in the County of London and the country as a whole.
Vast numbers of people are living in some of these metropolitan boroughs. Certainly the London County Council will be a huge area for administering these services and will quite clearly have to delegate this authority somewhere down the line. If that is so, why not leave it with people who on the whole have been doing it extremely well? I have made inquiries since—and the noble and learned Lord on

935
the Woolsack dealt with this point—and I am given to understand that the last Government was only too glad, under Mr. Willink as Minister of Health, for this thing to be settled between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs. They did accept what the authorities had agreed between themselves on a matter which, after all, mainly concerns them rather than the general health service of the country. When they did agree, as they did at one period, the Minister of Health was quite delighted that they had come to an agreement. As a wise man, he was ready to accept and so avert what might have been a difficult position. We had a very strong case put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who, if I may say so, put it extremely well. After all, it is right when we have such a forceful case put, and when a number of your Lordships are convinced that it is right, to give the other place an opportunity of second thoughts on the matter. Second thoughts are often best. In any event, it is quite within the functions of this House to send back a matter of that sort and to ask those in another place to think again. That is how the case stands at this moment.
Finally, I come to the question of a salary or capitation fee. My Amendment, which was carried—and I do not think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack meant to quote it completely—did leave exceptional cases to be dealt with by salary and capitation fee, but only capitation fee as the normal rule. On this particular matter this fact is rather sticking in the back of my mind, that we have never yet been told what in the normal case is going to be the kind of proportion between the salary and the capitation fee. If it were going to be only 20 per cent. capitation and 80 per cent. salary, noble Lords on these Benches would think that was getting too far towards a complete salary. If it were only going to be 25 per cent. salary—I am not talking about the Scilly Isles, or some exceptional case, but the normal case—and 75 per cent. capitation, I do not suppose there would be very much between us. What I do suggest is that if the Government cannot see their way to accept the Amendment moved in this House, at any rate they should tell us what kind of proportion for the normal case they have in mind. That would put a lot of anxieties to rest.
936
There are obvious things to be said—and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said them—against the capitation fee, if it does mean people taking on more patients than they can properly handle, or getting them, perhaps, because they are slightly lax in the way they give certificates. Perhaps that is the only thing a patient wants; he may not be ill for five or ten years, but he may require these certificates and he may feel that one doctor is better than another for that purpose. In these days unfortunately we have to have licences for everything, and I am told that a lady cannot even get a pair of corsets without a certificate from a doctor. In that event there would no doubt be a considerable temptation to change her doctor to one who would say that the particular garment was necessary for medical reasons. But by and large you do not want to take away from doctors the sense of energy and hard work, and part of that depends upon his being able to attract patients by giving them good service. In this House, on this particular matter, we have had the advantage of the opinion and the advice of, I suppose, the two foremost doctors in this country, the noble Lords, Lord Horder and Lord Moran. Doctors do not always agree and I have even known those two noble Lords not to agree with one another. But in this case they were both in favour of the Amendment that we carried. So once again I think we were right in sending this Amendment back to another place and asking them to take second thoughts.
I will conclude by saying this. I think the whole course of the debates we have had on this Bill show how well on most occasions this House can act as a kind of Council of State. We have worked together. Some things have been accepted, and some things have been objected to for one reason or another; but of the vast number of Amendments we had on the Order Paper on this measure there were only three on which we had to take our differences to a Division, and on one I am still hopeful that there is no division between us. At any rate, I think we can generally pride ourselves on the fact that this measure, having been through this House, is now a better measure than it was, and one which will enforce the authority of the management committees, allow the voluntary services to go on, and make the other various

937
provisions to which I have briefly referred in this speech. We can say to ourselves quite honestly and sincerely that we have made this Bill one which will in the end ensure better service to the sick in our land.
4.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we have from these Benches welcomed this Bill from the outset, and I am bound to say that, for myself, having had the opportunity during the course of its passage of giving it yet closer and more intimate study, I am all the more convinced that we were right in the original attitude that we adopted. I hope that during the course of its passage through this House we have been able to display not merely benevolent neutrality but beneficent partiality towards it. We have, as has already been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken, introduced a number of Amendments during the time that it has been in our hands. I think your Lordships will agree, in general, that the Bill has been considerably improved by those Amendments. I do not propose to deal with them individually, but I would just say this. I think it must be a satisfaction to all of us that so many of these Amendments have been accepted by the Government, so that when this Bill goes back to another place there will presumably be little discussion upon them, and they will not be regarded merely as irritants arising from a tainted source but as representing a general consensus of opinion of your Lordships' House.
If I may say so, I think that for that fortunate state of affairs your Lordships owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He appears to have the faculty of exercising a singularly benign and mellowing effect upon some of his colleagues, and we can only hope that the process which goes on behind the scenes is as effortless as the results make it appear to be when they are proclaimed to us. But whatever the procedure may be, we should be the last to attribute to the Minister the slightest degree of weakness in making concessions which, after discussion with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he thinks proper to make at the instigation of your Lordships' House, in the interests of creating a better Bill.
938
This Bill has, as I say, undergone quite considerable changes. I want to say a word on one Amendment which stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has just said. The noble and learned Lord said (and he would not claim for the remark entire originality) that hard cases make bad law. He must surely recognize that to make an exception of London, to treat London in a different way from that in which the rest of the county may be treated under any measure of this kind, is not in any way to create a precedent; it is not making new law or dealing with the problem on novel lines. There are, I should think, hundreds of Acts of Parliament which are peculiar to London and which recognize, by being peculiar to London, that the problems of London are different from those of the rest of the country and require special treatment appropriate to London.
Another Amendment on which I want to say a word is one on which I am bound to say I agree with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that it does constitute a blemish on the Bill. I refer to the one which establishes payment for doctors purely by capitation fees. During the Committee stage I ventured to express the views of noble Lords on these Benches on the subject, and I do not propose to go over them again. On further consideration, I am satisfied for my own part that the attitude we then adopted was the right one, and I hope that that method of payment will not be the one which is eventually embodied in the Bill.
On the Second Reading, when this Bill was new to us, I. ventured to say that I hoped the Government, in the interval between then and the time when it became operative, would consider whether it was humanly possible for one Minister to exercise the double function of Minister of Housing and Minister of Health. That suggestion received, perhaps rightly, no attention from any of the noble Lords who spoke from the Government Benches; but I am not altogether prepared to abandon it and I hope that in the interval which must ensue the Government will give real consideration to the administrative problems which would be involved in any one Minister trying to carry out adequately this double task.

939
There is one other point to which I want to call the attention of the Government. There is likely to be an interval of something like eighteen months before the scheme is actually in operation, and I believe that the Government would spend that time, or a portion of it, well in making Plain to the people of this country what this scheme includes and what it does not include, because the amount of ignorance—some of it wilful ignorance, and some of it just ignorance—which is still prevalent in the country is quite incredible. You still meet people—presumably educated people, and presumably people eager to give credit to the Bill for what it contains—who proclaim that under it no one is any longer entitled to go to the doctor of his choice; and that if you have a temperature of 105 degrees you are forced, under the Bill, to go out to a health centre and to stand in a queue extending down the road until it gradually filters through the doctor's consulting room, and other matters of that kind. I think there is a very large field for publicity and for education of the public during this intervening period, and I hope the Government will take advantage of it.
The Government will readily recognize that although the specific scheme embodied in the Bill may be their production, this idea of a national health service did not originate with them but with a Government which happily embodied members of all Parties. When I look back at the White Paper which was issued in 1944, I see that the position and the ambition of the scheme was summed up in a very few words:
"There is not yet a comprehensive cover for health provided for all people alike. That is what it is now the Government's intention to provide."
That was so in 1944, but I agree that the actual scheme is the one which takes shape in the present Bill. I believe myself that this scheme has infinite potentialities for good and I think it may yet be found, if it is administered, as I have little doubt that it will be administered, in a lofty spirit of public service and not in a narrow spirit of personal or political advantage, that this plan will stand as a memorial to the enduring courage, foresight and humanity of a country which is still barely convalescent after the long and bitter agony of war.
4.57 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to add my tribute to those which have been paid by my noble friend opposite and by the noble Marquess to the way in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has conducted the proceedings, if I may put it in that way, on this Bill in your Lordships' House. Then I should like to thank him for the very kindly personal reference which he made to myself and, more particularly, for the fact that he gave me notice that he was going to animadvert upon the blemishes "on the Bill. That has given me an opportunity—which may, I think, be of service to your Lordships—to restate the case for the Amendment which your Lordships thought fit to put into the Bill. That Amendment is now in the Bill; the Bill has to go back to another place and it is for that other place to consider it.
I endorse very strongly what the Lord Chancellor said about the spirit in which the Amendment was made in this House and in which it will, I hope, be considered in another place. Of course, it would be a tribute to the good sense and the good judgment of the Minister if he saw fit to accept this Amendment. We should welcome it as proving that he was open to second thoughts. Noble Lords beside me laugh, but I tell your Lordships that the case which I am going to try to make to your Lordships is just as good a case as any I have ever had to argue either in your Lordships' House or anywhere else. It is of vital importance to the people of London that this Bill should be allowed to become law in the form in which it now stands, as far as that Amendment is concerned. There were two major objects which your Lordships had in view in putting that Amendment in. One was to maintain the high quality of the maternity and child welfare services in the London boroughs and the other was to cease the process of undermining the quality of local government in the whole of the metropolitan boroughs. I do assure your Lordships, and I will attempt to prove it, that both will be in serious danger if that Amendment is not allowed to remain in the Bill.
Before I turn to the broad picture which I want to put before your Lordships, let me say one word on quite a minor point about home nursing, to which the noble

941
and learned Lord referred. In the Committee stage, when I moved my Amendment, the noble and learned Lord found fault with me because he said that the Amendment imposed on the metropolitan borough councils functions which they never yet had. When I challenged him he said it was home nursing, and that being so, he thought it seemed to him to be a retrograde step. I am not going to weary your Lordships with references, but as a matter of fact the Lord Chancellor was not right. He has been broadminded enough to admit that he was wrong, and he says that he went a little bit too far. Well, I accept that as a very generous climb-down by the Lord Chancellor. It is not often that a mere layman can have the pleasure of securing an admission of error, however infinitesimal, from the Lord Chancellor, and I do not desire to press the advantage any further.
As a matter of fact, the power is given to the borough councils in a section of the Public Health Act, 1936, but it did not give us anything more except in so far as the new Bill, under Section 25, imposes the power of borne nursing on all the local health authorities. Consequently, there was an extension, but I think it was a correct one in the circumstances. What worries me is that he said it was a retrograde step. A retrograde step is a step downhill, but what we are trying to do is to stand firm where we are and to go forward where there is room for going forward. It really is not an accurate description of this Amendment to call it a retrograde step. To get right down to brass tacks, let me read you a portion from the noble and learned Lord's speech, which shows what he wants to do. He says:
"But I do not believe it to be wise or sensible administration, & to have one body dealing with the under-fives and another body dealing with the over-fives. I do not think it is sensible. It is all very well to say this is a matter for local skill. So it is. What is far more important than that is the doctor who gets to know the family, who is the servant of ore particular authority. Surely to goodness if we have a doctor to look after a child of four and a half, should not the same doctor be able to look after the child of five and a half?"
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. His object and mine is the same, and I will explain to your Lordships why that object is served by the Amendment and not by rejecting it.
942
To complete the noble and learned Lord's case, I want to read your Lordships another short extract, because it is very relevant to the discussion which follows. This was on the Report stage, when I regret to say I was not in the House. I could not foresee that it would arise, but it did arise on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It reads as follows:
"If you are having, as you are, local authority services in any area, you must have one local authority and not several local authorities in that area responsible for those services. I am absolutely certain that that is a vital principle. I am very much opposed to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh He proposes to pick out from the various local health duties some of them, and some of them only, and in all the London boroughs, if his Amendment becomes law, you will have two authorities, some working in some services and some in another, and all of them to be carried out in a health centre. I believe that is absolutely chaotic."
My answer to that is a double one. To put it quite briefly—and I will substantiate it—that is what is happening in Kensington now, and so far from there being any chaos we have got the best services in London—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If noble Lords say "No", that only means that the other metropolitan boroughs are very good too, and that destroys the other argument of the Lord Chancellor. That is one answer. The other answer is that this chaos of different administrations will take place under the Bill and I will prove it to you. Take the existing position. First of all I would say a word about health centres. This health centre is a new idea and it is an experimental idea.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is not a new idea; it is twenty-five years old.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In the history of the world twenty-five years is not a very long time. Perhaps the noble Viscount will agree with me when I say that if it is not an absolutely new idea in the sense of being invented to-day, at all events it is still an experimental idea. We do not quite know what there is going to be in the health centres, but I can give your Lordships an idea, because as long ago as before the war we planned a health centre in Kensington, when we got as far as buying the land

943
and our plans for the building were all passed. We were going to put in that health centre the borough council infant welfare centre, the borough council antenatal clinic, the ante-natal clinic for the accommodation of the Queen Charlotte's Hospital district midwives service, the London County Council's school treatment centre, the borough council infant treatment centre, the borough council dental clinic, the sunlight clinic, a day nursery, a lecture room, the borough council tuberculosis dispensary and spare rooms for additional services. We were regarded as being rather ahead of the times in doing that. We have carried out the idea of services in a health centre by having at this moment our infant welfare clinic in the same building as the County Council school treatment clinic. We in fact own the building and the county council makes a small contribution for rent and heating, etc.
Consequently, we have there two local authority services working in the same building and accomplishing the very object which the noble and learned Lord has at heart. The mere duplication of administrative services does not matter a bit so long as you get co-ordination in the building where the services are carried on, and in proof of that let me call the Minister of Health to witness. Here is what the Minister says about the conditions in the health centres which are to be set up:
"A main feature of the personal practitioner services is to be the development of health centres. The object is that the health centre system, based on premises technically equipped and staffed at public cost shall afford facilities both for the general medical and dental services … and also for many of the special clinic services of the local health authorities … and also for out-post clinics of the hospital and specialist services …"
There you have got three authorities; you have the general medical and dental services which will work under the Executive Council; you have got the maternity and child welfare services which will work under the local health authority and you have got the consultant specialist services which will work under the Regional Board. You have got three administrations with three different sets of people working in the same building, and I assure you that there will not be chaos. If there is going to be chaos then of course
944
the Lord Chancellor's argument is a condemnation of the Bill.
Let me give you one other example of apparently overlapping services which will happen under the Bill, and which I am quite certain will not give rise to chaos. Take the case of the expectant mother. An expectant mother, before the child is born, will attend the antenatal clinic of the local health authority, that is the maternity and child welfare service, where she will be attended by a doctor. She will also be attended at home by the midwife who is the servant of the local health authority, the London County Council. She will be attended by her own doctor who, under the Bill, will work under the local executive council, and when she is in labour she will be in hospital under a doctor who is a servant of the regional authority of the area. On paper, it is chaos, but, in fact, it is not. It will work. Why should it not work to allow the borough councils to do this maternity and child welfare service which they do so well in these health centres, as, for example, at present in Kensington? There is no answer except that the Government are seeking to impose the pattern of the whole of the rest of the country on London, and, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has said, London is entirely different from the rest of the country. The local government of London is, as everybody knows, a thing entirely by itself.
One word about Kensington. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was good enough to say that the service given at Kensington might be good because it had the benefit of the direction of myself and people like me. But I can truthfully disclaim any personal credit, for in all the twenty-five years that I have served on the borough council, I have never been a member of the maternity and child welfare committee. But if you take these services away you are going to destroy the incentive to people who can render most useful service. They will not be tempted any longer to go on to a borough council if there is not this work for them to do. Nor is there any force in the argument which was used in another place, but not in this House, to the effect that Kensington being a wealthy borough, can afford these services. Everybody has heard of the block grant.

945
Everybody knows that it is at present under reconsideration. Any unfair advantage which a wealthy borough has will be removed.
If the noble and learned Lord desires to stress the fact that Kensington is exceptionally good, let me remind your Lordships that under the Amendment as it now is in the Bill the arrangement is that the London County Council, the local health authority, will delegate its power to the borough council and, of course, that delegation will not be unconditional. In the agreement come to between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs there was an arrangement for default. If the metropolitan borough maintains its services with efficiency and on the level which is held to be desirable, all will be well. If it should not maintain the services at the desirable level, or if its services should be deemed in any way to be unsatisfactory, then default can be imposed. The threat of use of the power of default can be employed on the appearance of any sign of slackness in order to induce a borough council whose services have deteriorated, to bring them back to the level of the past. Where services are fully maintained at the proper level, then of course they would be left alone.
What then will be lost if this administration is handed over to the London County Council? It will be the case that this intimate service will be managed from County Hall. At present, when a mother has a complaint to make, she has nothing to do but to seek out one of the local councilors. In Kensington we have nine wards, each represented by six or nine councilors. In North Kensington alone we have twenty-five aldermen and councilors who are quickly available to go to the help of any mother who has a complaint to make, or a suggestion to put forward, or who desires information. If the County Council is to take over these services they will have to decentralize and set up a regional office. There are only two members of the County Council for North Kensington and, as a matter of fact, neither of them lives in the district. That happens to be a coincidence, but it means that if some mother living in a poor street in North Kensington has some slight difficulty with the regional officer she will have to write to County Hall. I wonder how long it will be before the report is considered by one officer, submitted by him to another officer, and the answer
946
sent down the chain to the local regional officer. These regional officers of the County Council work to very detailed rules and detailed rules which may be suitable for one area are not suitable for general application to a vast area such as London. Our local borough councilors are there on the spot, and they are ready to intervene and iron out difficulties. The medical officer of health and the health visitors tell me privately that "of course the borough councilors are a nuisance but it is they who keep us up to scratch."
As an example of the sort of control which you get from the vast London County Council organization I can tell your Lordships this. I have ascertained—and you can take it as a fact—that in one of the County Council hospitals (it is one which I know very well) neither the medical superintendent nor the matron can condemn a bed-pan without authority from County Hall. I do not know whether there is a door in County Hall with "O.C. Bed-Pans" on it. There certainly would be if it was the Army. Anyway, there is actually an officer who fulfils that function. That is the sort of detailed administration you get when you have a vast bureaucratic organization governing an area with a population of 4,000,000 people with only 120 councillors.
The noble and learned Lord Chancellor was very kind and he did not only admit that he had gone a little far with regard to home nurses, but I think he said that he had perhaps not been quite right about the Coalition Government and their attitude towards this arrangement. What the Lord Chancellor said was:
"This is a topic upon which I feel very strongly and have done for the last four years. It was a topic on which the Coalition Government felt strongly, and it is a topic on which the present Government feel strongly."
I think that that is very likely perfectly correct about conditions in the provinces, but, unfortunately, that passage in the noble and learned Lord's speech was followed by remarks concerning my Amendment which must have given the House the impression that that attitude of mind of the Coalition Government also referred to London.
At the risk of delaying your Lordships I must quote to you what Mr. Henry Willink, the then Minister of Health, said in another place, because it is vital to this issue. He said:

947
"When that White Paper was published in February, 1944, it was obvious to all those in London that these very matters would need consideration: what was to be done by the London County Council and what was to be done by the boroughs? With my complete concurrence but under no pressure whatever, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was Chairman, then had discussions with the London County Council as to what their respective functions should be. By December, 1944, a most remarkable event happened: a full agreement on principle had been reached between the boroughs and the London County Council—a full agreement. No doubt there had been general discussion; there had been two full and formal conferences."
A little later, in the same speech, Mr. Willink said:
"I was informed of this agreement and thought it was on very sound lines. It had been arrived at independently of me, but with my concurrence. However, I suppose that if I had said that this was all very bad they might have considered looking at it again. But we were all quite happy."
My Lords, if that means anything, it must, I think, clearly mean that the then Minister was prepared to accept the arrangement that had been arrived at by the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs. And not one single member of the London County Council has come forward to say that there has been any change in the circumstances since then to justify an alteration of the arrangements then made and the agreement which they intended to put into effect. One had hoped that Lord Latham might have come here to tell your Lordships something about this but unfortunately he has not been able to do so and we have not had the benefit of his views upon this Bill.
I do not think I can add very much more. I hope the Government will have a very good look at this Bill as it now stands. Your Lordships, not for the first time, strange as it may appear to noble Lords sitting near me, have represented the real interests of the people. No one will be better pleased than we to feel that our efforts as a revising Chamber have improved this Bill. And this Amendment is not the least of the improvements which your Lordships have effected.
5.21 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I feel that I cannot let the occasion pass without expressing, on behalf of myself and friends associated with me, our great pleasure
948
at the acceptance of the Amendments that have been made to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, must feel particularly gratified that an Amendment which he moved was carried by this House. He has informed us how very important the London boroughs are, and how very pleased he is with the services they provide. All I can say is that the London boroughs are no more important that the county of Lincolnshire, and the several boroughs which there are in that county. I am equally proud of them, and of their health services. If your Lordships look at myself, and at the noble Lord who preceded me, I am sure you will come to the conclusion that the health services of my county are no less efficient than those of the county of London, and no less important! So far as administration is concerned, it is just as efficient in my part of the country as it is in London, and although I have been in the capital for a considerable time I am not one of those people who have become completely Cockney-minded about a measure of such vital importance to the country as this.
There were two things which disturbed me very much indeed, but I am happy to say that my mind has been put at rest by the acceptance of Amendments to this Bill. The first was the question of endowments. Quite recently I had the experience of a working joiner, not an employer of labour, but a workman, giving me 1,500 guineas for Scunthorpe War Memorial Hospital in appreciation of the services rendered to his wife in that hospital. That was a most magnificent gift, when you come to think that that man was not receiving more than £3 or £4 a week. He gave ten years' earnings. In addition, after a speech by a certain member of the hospital board, he decided that he would give another 1,000 guineas. When this Bill was introduced, I thought of that money being pooled among our hospital and other authorities, many of whom have not done much propaganda to obtain money to extend and improve the services of their hospitals. I wondered, too, how I should be able to look the donor in the face. But, thank goodness, the Government and the Minister have accepted from this House an Amendment which will enable me not only to accept the 2,500 guineas, but to look the man in the face and to ask him

949
if he will further consider the hospital in making his will. And I shall have no hesitation in doing so.
The other point about which I feel very satisfied, is the constitution of the hospital management committees. In my view, if this Bill had been passed as it was introduced into this House, no man of dignity or of ability would have consented to serve on a single committee of importance in this country. I was very disturbed about it. I am President of a hospital, and I think that everyone on the board, whatever his politics—and there are no politics in regard to the administration of a hospital—thought this was the end. We thought that if we wanted to deal with a member of our staff we would have to write to some regional authority, from whom ultimately we should have a reply fixing an appointment. There would then be an inquiry. This would mean that, so far as the resident staff were concerned, there would be neither discipline nor service in the hospital. No man of standing would continue to serve on a hospital committee that was powerless in that way. I am very pleased, and I think your Lordships' House must feel very gratified, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, have represented the views expressed here on this question in such a way that the Minister has at long last conceded that local committees shall be committees of management in a real sense.
I know a hospital which had on its resident surgical staff a man with every credential, but who in practice did not seem to be very successful. Finally, a member of the honorary staff told the subcommittee that they must get rid of the man—a specialist—at once. He was called before the committee, and was told that he must give a month's notice. He was given his money, and was told that if he did not resign he would be given a month's notice by the committee. I can conceive that if we had had to appeal to a Regional Board we should not have dispensed with that man's services without prolonged inquiry. Many of the men intimately acquainted with the reasons for his dismissal would have had to give evidence which might have incriminated even themselves. For that reason alone, so far as committees are concerned, this Amendment is one which the Government, and every member of this House, can justify. May I conclude by saying
950
how pleased I am with these two major Amendments, and with the spirit in which the Bill has been accepted by the House? I am quite certain that it will give great joy and encouragement to the voluntary hospitals of this country to continue the good work Which they have done so well in the past.
5.28 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, we on this side of the House are much gratified by the remarks of the last speaker, because they prove to the public that this Assembly, which has been so much abused, has its uses. To have a member of the House on the Government side coming down and thanking the House in general for what it has done for the Bill, is gratifying. I should like to deal with one other portion of the noble Lord's speech. He asked, why should not London be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the country? Of course, there is a great deal to be said for that argument, but it must be remembered that London government is entirely different from county council government in other parts of the country.
A very different state of affairs applies in London. I am not going into the constitution of London government or the way in which London, with its nearly 4,000,000 people, differs from other parts of the country. At the same time I reinforce the argument that has been put forward, that London for that very reason has always had separate treatment. To my mind, a very grave departure is being made. In a most eloquent speech, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, put the case extremely well. Not having served on a local authority in London, nevertheless he knows, as Chairman of a Commission—which I am sorry to see has now been suspended—something about the London position. Probably with his acute mind he knows a great deal more than many of us who have taken part in actual administration. From my long experience I say that you will very greatly discourage many of the best workers—especially women, who take such an enormous interest in this work—from coming forward as candidates for the London borough councils.
No better example of what will happen can be given than that mentioned in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, when he told your Lordships what happens under L.C.C. pro-

951
cedure. Routine work is very slow. As an education manager, I know how difficult it is to get anything done without going through the very necessary routine. It is a very long process. The same thing will apply in this regard in future. With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said about his experiences during twenty-five years, I might point out that when I was Mayor of Westminster I founded a health centre as long ago as 1902. As to what was said about Kensington being a rich borough, and being able to afford these things, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, reminded us of the equalizing effect of the block grant, which enables every borough in London to share in these services. Therefore, I think that when this Bill passes this House and is discussed in another place, it should be remembered that there is no political angle in this. There is no political advantage in it. Both parties will agree over the transfer of these services. It is very extraordinary that when my party was in power in the borough council we never could get an agreement with the L.C.C. Now that the Labour Party is in power in both the borough council and the L.C.C. they do agree.
It shows that there is an awareness of deficiencies and a desire to make up for those deficiencies, to the advantage of London as a whole. Having had experience of local government in London for so many years, and having had some connexion with the Bill which afterwards became the London Government Act, 1900, I am very concerned about the difficulty of getting people from all three Parties to take part in London local government, if you rob it of a great deal of its interest. I do not quite understand the argument about making up to the L.C.C. for having taken away their hospital services. The L.C.C. have done and are doing splendid service. They are overworked already, and it is no use trying to make out that, because you are taking away certain services, they will have so little to do that you must give them these additional services which you are taking away from the borough councils. You can ask anybody in the L.C.C. what an immense field there is. They are not in touch on the spot with the people as are the borough councils. The borough councillor is usually a very
952
accessible person, perhaps serving in his shop. Anyone can approach him and say: "I want my dust cleared" or "My rates are wrong." The individual does not have to go down to the town hall. One's representative on the L.C.C. probably lives miles away, and is not cognizant at all of the petty details of local life, which the borough councillor knows so well.
I do hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will try to see the position from our point of view. Taking an interest, as I do, in this vast question of the future of London local government, I am perfectly sure that, if the Government accept our Amendment, they will not only give great satisfaction to those who work so hard for the good government of this great city, but will encourage people to come forward and share in that good work.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ATOMIC ENERGY BILL.
5.37 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COINAGE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RURAL HOUSING.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many houses have been completed in rural areas since January 1, 1946, and how many of these have been occupied by or allocated to agricultural workers.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the number of houses completed in rural areas

953
in Great Britain since January 1, 1946, is as follows: Permanent houses, 6,285; temporary houses, 5,540. As the noble Lord is aware, a preferential subsidy is available to local authorities in respect of permanent houses provided for the agricultural population, and it is anticipated that this will ensure that a large proportion of permanent houses built will be allocated to agricultural workers. The numbers so allocated will, however, not be known until the local authorities concerned apply for the special subsidy.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer.

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
COLCHESTER GAS ORDER, 1946.
MARGATE, BROADSTAIRS AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been received praying to be heard against the Special Orders and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORKS.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORKS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.